Best iraq history books according to redditors

We found 209 Reddit comments discussing the best iraq history books. We ranked the 72 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Iraq History:

u/asics4381 · 43 pointsr/army

Definitely an event that is often overlooked, but i'm not sure what you mean by the "beginning." 1979 Iranian Revolution is a much better starting date for modern U.S. policy in the Middle East. Check out Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East. It also contains excellent analysis of the Beirut bombing and associated events.

u/Georgy_K_Zhukov · 40 pointsr/AskHistorians

When the US began operating in Afghanistan in late 2001, Special Forces operators used horses to get around. A few pictures of 'em. I've read a few accounts of soldiers going into engagement on horseback there, but not an actual cavalry charge in formation to break the enemy formation.

Horse Soldiers apparently gives a good account of them, but I haven't read it.

u/SpritiTinkle · 37 pointsr/hoggit

This Book describes F-15E strikes on night 1 of the Desert Storm air campaign. Strike packages of F-15E's were escorted by a MIGCAP of F-15C's on at least night 1. So to everyone saying that F-15E's don't get escorts you are wrong in at least one occasion.

u/CoyoteLightning · 21 pointsr/politics

there is truth in this statement, but at the same time, there are many out there who are also doing unbelievable, excellent work right now.

For example, these people are serious ass-kickers: Matt Taibi, Jane Mayer, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Thomas Ricks, Nicholas Kristof, Steve Coll, Seymor Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Dana Priest, James Bamford, Thomas Frank, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Naomi Klein, Robert Sheer, Stephen Kinzer, Nir Rosen, Robert Fisk, Chris Hedges, Charles Bowden...the list goes on and on.

I think a serious case could be made that the U.S. has many of the best journalists in practice today. This is a very impressive list, as far as I'm concerned and shows that there is in fact a hell of a lot of great work being done by U.S. journalists. This is not to say that they get a fair hearing from the corporate media, however...

u/StudyingTerrorism · 14 pointsr/geopolitics

Unfortunately, the most efficient way to become knowledgable about the Middle East is to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.

Books - General History of the Middle East


u/PIK_Toggle · 13 pointsr/IAmA

Not OP, but I asked the same question years ago and I compiled this list:

​

  1. This is the best book on the subject that I've read. It is as fair to both sides as one can be. In fact, I came away with a better understanding of how and why the Palestinians feel the way that they do after reading the book.

    ​

  2. The Arab Spring. This is a great journey through all of the countries affected by The Arab Spring. It helps understand where we are now.

    ​

  3. The Prize. Technically, it is the history of the oil industry. As you should expect, it covers a lot of ME history, too.

    ​

  4. Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS This book helps you understand how radical ISIS really is compared to AQ.

    ​

  5. Michael Oren has two good books: Six Days of War and Power, Faith, and Fantasy. Despite Oren's affiliation with Israel, his books are fair and interesting reads.

    ​

    A book on the fall of the Ottoman Empire is another good place to start. I have not read this one yet. I've heard that it is a good read.

    ​

    ​
u/Lmaoboobs · 12 pointsr/army

Here what I've picked up
On War by Clausewitz

MCDP 1 Warfighting

FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfare

FMFRP 12-13 Maneuver in War

On Grand Strategy

The Art of War by Baron De Jomini

Just and Unjust Wars (apparently it's on the Commandant's reading list too)

Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle

Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla

Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century

The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan

Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat

Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations (Volume 5)

JP-1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States

DoD Law of War Manual

The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS

Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns

The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam

Strategy: A History

LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

MCTP 3-01C Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery

Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011

Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State

Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq

The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy

Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime

This is all I can name off the top of my head right now

u/[deleted] · 10 pointsr/indieheads

The past few days I've felt really frustrated, hopeless, and helpless after the Orlando shooting. I feel like we're all going to grieve for a few days, I'm gonna listen to People Who Can Eat People a couple times, and then we'll all continue with nothing changed, waiting for the next one. I still feel helpless, but I have thought of some things, short-term and long-term, that I think might help if you want to do something.

  1. Spread love in the face of hate. To anyone who was affected or knew anyone who was affected by the Orlando shootings- my heart goes out to you. We stand with you. To anyone who's ever been affected by terrorist groups, to anyone who's ever been persecuted because their sexuality or gender, to any person of the Islamic faith who's been discriminated because of who you pray to- my heart goes out to you. We need to unite not just as a country but as a world that believes that good can triumph over evil, that compassion, empathy, and genorosity will defeat people with hate in their hearts.

  2. Donate. There's a GoFundMe to help victims of the attack. It has currently raised 1.6 Million dollars. That's a hell of a start on goal #1.

  3. Get educated. Two books with great reviews have bumped up my reading list: No God But God, about Islam as a whole, and Black Flags: The Rise of Isis. If you're not a reader but still want to learn, here's a Crash Course on Islam and here's one on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Even though sometimes it doesn't feel like, we do live in a democracy, and whether you're voting or discussing things with friends/family I believe education over ignorance can create a better world.
u/ScotiaTide · 10 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>That's why it's important to combat ISIS then conceive a permanent political solution.

Sajjan is talking about the need to understand population dynamics on the ground in a place like Iraq, and how rushing in is also likely to lead to a genocide.

I would suggest reading Patrick Cockburn"s The Rise of Islamic State, particularly for context on the problem in Iraq.

If we ever want to see Iraq exist as a unified state and also defeat ISIS, we need to understand why the Sunni in places like Mosul are terrified of the Iraqi Army. If we don't conceive of a permanent solution first, air support for the Iraqi army as it moves north is air cover for the death squads that follow closely in its wake. We would likely do nothing but set up the grievances for the next bloody civil war and the next ISIS.

u/x_TC_x · 10 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Depends on how much in-depth you want them to be, and if you're more into 'general politics', or into 'military-related affairs'.

For really good understanding of how Syria came into being, and what events and processes shaped it early on, you might want to read:

  • A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East, and

  • The Great Syrian Revolt: And the Rise of Arab Nationalism

  • Syria: A Recent History

    Given your German flag, you might add

  • Damaskus: Oase zwischen Haß und Hoffnung for a 'general overview'. This small volume is covering general Syrian history since ancient times until early 1990s. Similarly good (i.e. 'for general orientation'), is

  • Die Araber

    Now, since much of recent Syrian history is dominated by the Syrian military, you might need some read in this regards. Ideally, there would be an English translation for the best - most detailled, most in-depth - book on history of Syrian armed forces, Pesach Malovany's big volume tittled something like 'Out of the North an Evil shall break Forth' (sorry, all the links I used to have to its publisher are down) - published (like, sigh, so many really good Israeli books on Arab-Israeli wars) in Hebrew only. But there is none. Word is that this might get translated to English by the University of Kentucky, sometimes next or the year after.

    Some might suggest you Arabs at War. Regardless how comprehensive, when it comes to Syria I find it hopelessly obsolete, onesided and largely based on 'battlefield heritage' (see: hear-say). Indeed, although anything than 'Syria-related', I found Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippour War much more useful for studying the Syrian military during the October 1973 War (and even after!).

    Namely, that one is largely based on Egyptian documentation captured during the October 1973 War, and cross-examination of related Egyptian and Syrian military literature.

    A 'short-cut' of sort (i.e. avoiding collecting all of these books) would be to go for the Arab MiGs books... though this is in turn an own series of six volumes, covering the history of Arab air forces at war with Israel in period 1955-1973.

    Good thing about these books is that they're based on hundreds of interviews, authentic publications (including several by top Syrian military commanders), and whatever documentation the authors managed to get. They're providing really unique insights: far from merely counting aircraft, describing their markings, or discussing claims, they're descibing political backgrounds, arms deals, training (including outright fist-fights between top Syrian pilots and Soviets supposed to instruct them), organization, tactics, weaponry, foreign influences (in the case of Syrians, this was foremost Czechoslovak and not 'Soviet' by nature, and in this regards these books are well-supported by - between others - loads of original documentation from Czech National Archives) etc.

    Finally, re. causes of the SCW: there is meanwhile a small myrad of related titles - with best example probably being a quite massive volume titled The Syrian Jihad: al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency. Where that title 'excells' is in showing 'local influence and flair' of the entire affair: in turn, that is often making it hard to follow. Right now, I wouldn't know a 'simplier', 'easier to follow' volume describing this affair, though (any recommendations are most welcome).
u/cleaningotis · 7 pointsr/CredibleDefense

If you want to understand the nature of the war and the strategy used to fight it from the surge (2007) onward I recommend David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War by Fred Kaplan. This book will describe all the big names and texts that helped formulate modern counterinsurgency doctrine and will give you plenty of authors and publications to further explore. To further understand counterinsurgency, I recommend The Accidental Guerilla by David Kilcullen (this link downloads the file, it does not open it a new window) that has a great chapter on Iraq since he was the senior COIN advisor for a few months into the surge. You can also read FM3-24 the original 2006 version, but its a dense read and I recommend you familiarize yourself with the doctrine through other publications before tackling the field manual itself.

Fiasco by Thomas Ricks is a decent history of the run up to the Iraq war and the first years, I would say 2002-2005 is where it is strongest although it does discuss important history prior to 9/11 in the containment of Iraq and some detail into 2006.

From the Surge onward I recommend Ricks' follow on book The Gamble, and The Surge by Peter Mansoor. These books will detail the important changes and in strategy and operational practices that characterized the Surge and the post 2006 war effort.

These are the books I have personally read that best address your questions. Books that are more tactically oriented instead of focusing on the big picture include The Forever War by Dexter Filkins, which is a morbid book that does justice to the horror of the Iraq's sectarian civil war. Thunder Run by David Zucchino is worthy of being a masterpiece in terms of how well the author constructed an incredible narrative on the tank forays into the heart of Baghdad in the early weeks of the war. My Share of the Task by Stanley McChrystal is a great read on McChrystal fomented a significant evolution in JSOC's intelligence culture and operational tempo. This book is of value specifically to what you asked because his men were the ones that were tracking Abu Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and was the first iteration of what is now known as ISIS. McChrystal describes the structure of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and much of ISIS's organization and methods can be traced back to Zarqawi's leadership.

I don't think you will find any books that will do justice to your interest in terms of recent events however I have some advice that I feel will help you immensely. Simply type in (topic of interest) and end it with pdf into google. This cuts out brief news articles and wikipedia entries and leaves you with top notch reports published by peer reviewed journals and think tanks. This is all free, and its very well researched work.

A report I'm currently reading that I'm sure you will find interesting is Iraq in Crisis by CSIS. It's of course long for a think tank report, but it has a lot of information and great statistics and charts that help the reader better understand Iraq's trends in violence and other challenges. Here are two more interesting reports by well known think tanks that pertinent to what you are looking for.

On the evolution of Al Qaeda and other salafi jihadists by RAND

Iraqi politics, governance and human rights by the Congressional Research Service

u/Seth0351 · 7 pointsr/hoggit

F-15E can't come fast enough... If you're like me and enjoy IRL accounts of combat aircraft, I can't suggest Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War enough - lots of ground radar descriptions and use

u/InsiderSwords · 7 pointsr/AskAnAmerican

For more information, I recommend you read

[Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond]
(https://www.amazon.com/Force-Fanaticism-Wahhabism-Arabia-Beyond/dp/1849044643)
Describes the history of Wahhabism and its effects. Author spent time in Saudi Arabia.

[The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State] (https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-Apocalypse-History-Strategy-Doomsday/dp/1250112648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875330&sr=1-1&keywords=The+ISIS+Apocalypse)

Self explanatory.

[Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection] (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Unjust-Behind-U-S-Saudi-Connection/dp/1944869026/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875675&sr=1-1&keywords=kingdom+of+the+unjust+behind+the+u.s.-saudi+connection)

Easy to read description of Saudi crimes.

[The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11] (https://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/1400030846/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875754&sr=1-1&keywords=Looming+Tower)

Excellent narrative history of Al Qaeda. Highly recommended.

[My Year Inside Radical Islam: A Memoir] (https://www.amazon.com/My-Year-Inside-Radical-Islam/dp/1585426113/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875857&sr=1-1&keywords=My+Year+inside+Radical+Islam)

Not a wide-sweeping narrative but a personal story of someone who worked for a Saudi-funded charity and slowly adapted their beliefs.

[On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines -- and Future]
(https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875930&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Saudi+Arabia)

Written by a reporter who spent years in Saudi Arabia, gives a description of Saudi society.

[The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine] (https://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876042&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Siege+of+Mecca)

A great history of an almost unknown terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Goes into the relationship between the Saudi royal family and Wahhabi religious establishment.

[Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror]
(https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Enemy-Jihadist-Ideology-Terror/dp/0300122578/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876149&sr=1-1&keywords=Knowing+the+Enemy)
Really good explanation of Salafi-Jihadism.


Edit: Added links and made it look nicer. If you want more, just ask. If anyone has any other recommendations, I would like to know. :)

u/princeofropes · 7 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Patrick Cockburn - The Rise of the Islamic State
is short and sweet, and avoids pro-Western jingoism

u/sanjeetsuhag · 6 pointsr/aviation

Personally, I think the best way to get a good understanding of modern US airpower is to work chronologically. Most people find WWII stuff boring, so I recommend starting with the Vietnam War, then moving to the First Gulf War, then the Kosovo War, then the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Falklands War is very interesting because it gives a British and naval perspective (both of which are lacking from my current list), however, the author of that book was pretty pissed at how every thing was handled during his time as a pilot (and a lot of it I agree with), so the book sometimes ends up feeling a little 'rant-y'.

If you're looking for an action filled book about rotorcraft, then look no further and pick up Ed Macy's Apache. Some of the missions described in that book are just too insane, but somehow, they pulled it off.

u/AuthenticCounterfeit · 6 pointsr/TrueReddit

>Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq before G.W.Bush even assumed office

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he'd been duped. But this just makes his support for it that much more inhumane, knowing fully the history of how US invasions of third world nations had gone before that. So what I'm hearing here is that he was monstrous, not credulous. Cool.

>As for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, maybe it's because I'm not American but I take a much more nuanced view on the rationale for the United States going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq

No, it's not that you're not American, it's that you don't apparently see dead Iraqis as mattering that much, I guess? It seems like a pretty basic exercise in empathy to center the people who will suffer the most in your considerations of what actions to take or not take.

>As for Michael Moore getting people to 'wake up' to the truth IMO he's a bullshit artist and not a particularly good one either because anyone whose taken even more than a cursory glance at the history of Iraq, the Bush family connections he espouses and the motivations he suggests that the U.S government had for invading Iraq are almost all universally false and his entire case is misleading.

I mean, look at the genius speaking for himself:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

"He tried to kill my dad" was part of the case. Who the fuck cares, George?

We went into Iraq for oil. We only care about the Middle East in general because of oil. You're a naif if you think otherwise.

Strong recommendation for this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Greater-Middle-East-ebook/dp/B0174PRIY4

Written by a military man who became a military historian, who lost a son in Afghanistan, if you're wondering if he's qualified to write it.

We've been in the region in an openly militaristic set of operations since the Carter administration.

Michael Moore is no worse for democracy, and I'd say substantially better, than GW Bush, Colin Powell or Dick Cheney. We'd be much better off if none of those men ever rose to power.

u/pho_king_L_m8 · 5 pointsr/news

That is not an accurate statement. For one, Saddam was a Sunni a Sunnis in general curried great favor under that regime. Once we went in and toppled the Baathist party, Shia's started to dominate the interim government. That in part FUELED the Islamic State uprising.

We very well could have gotten rid of Saddam and prevented the scale of the insurgency had we not done two fatal errors - The Interim Governor of Iraq (U.S. Paul Bremer) disbanded the ENTIRE Iraqi military and government workers. You essentially had an entire military (4th largest in the world at the time) and an entire working government worth of trained/educated folks completely unemployed, no pensions, no benefits - nada.

There was no indigenous fighting or government force left to help quell the obvious power vacuum that was left. A viable fighting force was one of the keys behind our initial and unprecedented success in Afghanistan only a year and a half earlier. Around 400-500 intelligence and Special Operations personnel in conjunction with the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan shortly after 9-11. We screwed the pooch by not providing and facilitating the other tools of statescraft to flourish after due to Iraq brewing on the horizon.

Many insurgent groups sprang up around this time (Circa 2004-2007 specifically) to include the sunni AQI which then morphed into ISIS. Conversely though, a young savey thug Jordanian buy the name of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi saw opportunity and gave rise to the sectarian (sunni vs shia) violence that swept across the region like wild fire with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006.

Shia's were absolutely NOT part of AQI or ISIS.

[Paul Bremer Source] (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1mmjpe/how_do_i_make_text_a_link/)

Rise of ISIS Source

[Shia Golden Mosque Bombing Source] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_mosque_bombing)

u/thane_of_cawdor · 5 pointsr/CredibleDefense

The Dictator's Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes by Caitlin Talmadge

The RAND monograph Why the Iraqi Resistance to the Coalition Invasion Was So Weak by Stephen Hosmer offers an overview of why Saddam's coup-proofing weakened the Iraqi Military and then gives a surprising amount of detail on specific examples with some very funny anecdotes regarding Uday and Qusay. :)

The Syrian Jihad by Charles Lister has some great information about the SAA's effectiveness during the Syrian civil war 2011-2015 if you're willing to wade through a lot of information about small jihadi groups.

Saddam Husayn and Civil-Military Relations in Iraq: The Quest for Legitimacy and Power by Ahmed Hashim has some great info on Saddam's defense policy of coup-proofing and its effects on military effectiveness.

The Iraqi Army and Anti-Army: Some Reflections on the Role of the Military by Faleh Jabar addresses much of the same things as Hashim's piece.

Finally, Iraq's Armed Forces: An Analytical History by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Sammy Salama is a broad overview of Iraq's military.

u/IStillLikeChieftain · 4 pointsr/WarCollege

> Isn't it true that the US's main strategy is to throw piles of money at war-related problems until the problems go away?

I'd strongly disagree with that.

There are elements in the overall US establishment that, of course, like spending money. The defense industry, for starters. Some members of Congress (more Republicans than Democrats, but it's not a cut and dry split), and there is of course the Pentagon establishment (bureaucracy and generals alike) that like spending.

However, in war, that changes. Nobody wants to burn money in a war. It's one thing to spend money in peacetime - Congressmen create jobs for their districts and guarantee lucrative lobbying/company positions for themselves. Colonels and generals get promoted for getting weapons systems designed and approved. And defense contractors obviously get profits.

However, in war, the political stakes are raised - people get upset when wars start costing a lot of money, so Congressmen are antsy. Generals and Pentagon bureaucrats alike don't want to be the ones in charge of an expensive, bloody war. Even defense contractors know that you can only go so much to the well, before the well goes dry (especially these days when the lower and middle classes have been bled white, the only way to pay for expensive shit like bad wars is by taxing businesses and the wealthy). You'll notice that almost zero Bush-era Republicans are in any positions of influence now - the public voted for them as a show of support during the war, but there was a big cleaning out starting in 2008 (both at polls and in the primaries).

You'll note that the Iraq War itself, meaning Operation Iraqi Freedom, was fought relatively cheaply. It was a small force (something that would come back to bite the US in the ass) doing the invasion, and the war was over very quickly. Rumsfeld fought quite hard with the Pentagon to cut back on the size of the invasion - he didn't want another Gulf War, and he was confident it could be won with a smaller, cheaper force.

The occupation itself is where matters went to hell, but this was not caused by excessive spending (rather the opposite - the small invasion force was insufficient for an occupation, not trained to police, not equipped for an occupation and policing.)

The solution to the insurgency was also not a matter of throwing money at it. It's true that extra funds were spent - buying the loyalties of Sunni sheikhs who had enough of Al-Qaeda, and the extra deployed manpower during the Surge - but this was a temporary boost in the budget to facilitate new strategies designed to end the insurgency, and thus save money in the long run. The insurgency was ended by a change in tactics, a change in leadership, a change in strategy. It was not ended by throwing money into the fire.

I highly, highly recommend that you go pick up Fiasco and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks. IMHO they are absolutely critical reading to understanding the Iraq War, how it began, why it began, how it went wrong, and how it was brought to an acceptable resolution. The books identify the mistakes made along the way, the critical errors in judgment that led to the insurgency, and the fundamental failures of American military leaders and their training. My views on the war were completely changed - and I went through both my conservative early-war mindset (including being angry at our Canadian politicians for not standing with America), as well as my liberal mid-war disgust with the blatant war profiteering and corruption (ie, cost-plus contracts for Halliburton) as well as the obvious incompetence of Rumsfeld/Cheney.

u/albacore_futures · 4 pointsr/DepthHub

The ISIS apocalypse covers your question, along with OP's history in more detail. Very easy read, and very informative.

ISIS split from AQ before the death of bin Laden. AQ and ISIS had disagreements before bin Laden's death, and the emails / notes of those arguments are part of the book I linked. They're basically separate organizations which cooperated when circumstances warranted. I'd be surprised if a new bin Laden could unite them because bin Laden never led ISIS, but I'm not an expert.

u/gootsby · 4 pointsr/syriancivilwar

AQI is literally ISIS, it's leader (Zarqawi) took orders from AQ until he wanted to go along a different route, Bin Laden advised him to not be so harsh on a population and not target shia's but Zarqawi didn't listen and that's when they became the Islamic state. It's possible AQ has guys ready to go set up shop in Iraq post ISIS but I dunno they know they're not really wanted their and this round the gov in Baghdad is going to try and reel Mosul and Anbar a lot closer than it had post 2003 to ensure nothing like ISIS happens again.

If you're interested this book goes into great detail http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-ISIS-Apocalypse-Strategy-Doomsday/dp/1250080908

u/thelasian · 4 pointsr/worldnews

> you use inhabitants for Palestinians, while using Zionists as an aggressor, I would assume that you have a bias towards this situation.

Yes, I have a bias towards factual accuracy. Note that the Palestinians didn't arrive from Ukraine or Brooklyn, the Zionists did, and the Zionists didn't end up murdered, raped or forced into refugee camps there, the Palestinians did.

>Holocaust

which had nothing to do with Palestinians, so...
But in fact the Zionist had themselves struck a bargain with Nazis to promote emigration to Israel https://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569804338


>those kicked out from middle eastern countries

You mean the Mizrahi jews whom Israel didn't even recognize as refugees until it became convenient to do so in order to counter the rights of palestinians https://972mag.com/spineless-bookkeeping-the-use-of-mizrahi-jews-as-pawns-against-palestinian-refugees/56472/

Palestinians who were, again, were not responsible for what happens in Morocco or Iraq... except in the fevered minds of Zionists for whom they're all just a bunch of Arabs and subject to collective punishment. And FYI lets not forget that the Zionist themselves probably bombed Jews in Baghdad to convince them to move to Israel
https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Gurions-Scandals-Haganah-Mossad-Eliminated/dp/1893302407

In fact according to CIA officer Wilbur Crane Eveland:

>>"In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in the synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel... most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had 'rescued' really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population."https://www.amazon.com/Ropes-Sand-Americas-Failure-Middle/dp/0393013367/

And ...

>the Palestinians rejected it and then countered with a war which they lost

Actually the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians started before the 1948 war in places like Jaffa and Haifa, where the local population was gathered up into the village square, bombarded with mortar fire, and literally forced into the sea where British naval vessels picked up the survivors and took them eventually to refugee camps.

And the idea that innocent Palestinian villagers and women and children are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of the Jordanian or Egyptian military is yet another example of the Zionist racist tribalistic mind set of "heck they're all just Arabs"

PS the last time someone claimed that people who lost wars could be ethnically cleansed, he had a funny little moustache.

u/jayriemannschnieder · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I really liked Black Flags: The Rose of Isis by Joby Warrick. It's a great primer on the origins and history of the group and its 2 most important figures, Abu al Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Before I read it Isis was for me as you alluded to: a topic I heard about all the time but really only had a surface level knowledge of.

Here's the link to the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-The-Rise-ISIS/dp/0385538219

u/MrSquigglypuff · 3 pointsr/POTUSWatch

What? The book I cited is a work with it's own sources. The articles you are posting do not refute any point made or to be made. Call a sourced book a meme all you want, but you're wrong.

 

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804168938/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_f4oAzbBAQ37H4

u/srbarker15 · 3 pointsr/WeTheFifth

-
Off the top of my mind, specific books they've mentioned that I've enjoyed:
-
-Hitch 22 by Christopher Hitchens

-

-Open Letters by Vaclav Havel

-

-The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1926-1939 by Antony Beevor

-

-So You've Been Publically Shamed by Jon Ronson

-

-Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keefe



-

I'll try to remember more and add to it as I can recall them.

EDIT

-Ghost Wars by Steve Coll

-

-Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS by Joby Warrick

-

-Both Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans' accounts of HItler, Germany, and the Third Reich in WWII

-

-Moynihan did a long interview in Vice about Karl Ove Knausgaard, so I would imagine maybe he's a fan

-

-Bad Blood by John Carryrou

-

-The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie

u/blueblur · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Al-Qaeda had many bases over large geographic territory. I doubt U.S. had full knowledge of the location of all of these basis, much less the specific location of OBL. And the Taliban were allowing Al-Qaeda to operate inside Afghanistan. In addition, as pointed out by others, Taliban were refusing to hand over OBL with no strings attached as U.S. was demanding. U.S. wasn't going to allow any strings on that one.

Your idea about the special forces in Afghanistan was partially implemented. Here is an excellent book on the subject. I recommend it very highly.

http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580514

u/cg_roseen · 3 pointsr/syriancivilwar

It all depends on what kind of angle you're looking for.

Here is by no means an exhaustive list. I must say I haven't read all of these but have come across them in research and from previous recommendations on here, but here goes:

Background/Social & Historical contexts/Other relevant stuff

Patrick Seale - Assad (rather old, good for history)

Tarek Osman - Islamism (2016, broad coverage of Islamism in theory and practice, good context)

John Robertson - Iraq (2016)

John McHugo - Syria (2015)

Sami Moubayed - Syria & The USA (2013)

Sami Moubayed - Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000, very good for Syrian history and experience with democracy)


Perceived pro-original opposition bias

Diana Darke - My House in Damascus (new version came out 2015)

Michael Weiss & Hassan Hassan - ISIS (2015)

Charles Lister - The Syrian Jihad (2016)

Perceived pro-government bias

Patrick Cockburn - Rise of the Islamic State (2015, this might not be as detailed as you'd want it to be)

Kurds

Michael Knapp, Ercan Ayboga & Anja Flach - Revolution Rojava (2016, the detail in this is beyond insane)

u/SupremeReader · 3 pointsr/CombatFootage

The cited sources are probably in the source material.

u/jckdup · 3 pointsr/Military

Ghost Soldiers: The Epic Account of World War II's Greatest Rescue Mission https://www.amazon.com/dp/038549565X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_FfkGDbDF5HWJ6

Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416580514/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_xhkGDbR6PKMNJ

Probably my two favorite and inspirational stories about our Brothers.

Six Frigates Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TK0TJY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_sjkGDbWMAAEA7

Is also pretty interesting if you like Squidly stuff.

u/myearsmyears · 3 pointsr/politics

For further proof on BushCo incompetence, Imperial Life in the Emerald City is also a fantastic read. It covers the coalition provisional authority and the early days of Bush's nation building attempt. Pretty much anything that was possible to fuck up, was.

u/gonzolegend · 3 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Well its quiet a task getting someone up to date on a war as complex as this. Certainly don't envy anyone just getting an interest on the topic.

As Hanihamawi said the Syrian Civil War wikipedia page has a lot of information as an introduction with plenty of links to factions pages to read their history. But being Wikipedia its a rather dry matter-of-fact chronicle of events.

Books would probably be the way to go. Only problem is I haven't seen what I would consider the de-facto book on the Syrian civil war yet. Suspect a few will be published once the war ends.

Best way to go would be to take it in stages. Good background book on the recent history of the Middle East, book on Iraq and the War on Terror period, and maybe try find a neutral recent one on Syria.

The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East - by Robert Fisk is a great backgrounder from a journalist who has lived in the Middle East 40 years now, covering all the wars and tensions in the region during that 40 year timeframe.

Aftermath by Nir Rosen is a good one covering the War on Terror period in Iraq. An American of Arab descent he moved to Baghdad in 2003 and lived/reported unembedded during most of the Occupation. Talks a lot about the sectarianism that began rising and spreading to neighbouring countries back in 2009 when it was published.

On Syria you might like The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution by Patrick Cockburn, another war reporter who has covered the Middle East for 3 decades now. This book is a collection of his writings on Syria and would make a good read for someone just getting interested in the war.








u/dnowitzki41 · 3 pointsr/vancouver

Well you can start by thanking the United States for destabilizing the entire region when they invaded Iraq and created a breeding ground for chaos.

If you're actually interested in this subject, I'd recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.ca/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick/dp/0804168938

Really easy and thorough read on how ISIS came to be and the political context in which they exist(ed).

u/foreverxcursed · 2 pointsr/ProjectMilSim

Are you looking for pulse pounding, believable-but-still-inventive enough, hardcore mercenary action? Well look no further.

Direct Action - Written by a former Ranger/SF guy, this is the first in a set of (so far) 3 books featuring Deckard as the main character. Deckard is a former SF and CIA SAD guy who ends up getting contracted by a shady cabal to form a PMC for them to use in their attempt to bring about a NWO. He says "fuck that." This is honestly some of the best in the genre of military fiction. Written by a dude who has been there and done that, it's well written and believable enough, and the action...gritty, hardcore, doorkicking, operating action. It does not stop once it starts, and neither do the sequels, Target Deck and Direct Action. They're a blast to read and I can't recommend them enough.

Task Force Desperate - America's dollar has collapsed. The military is incredibly underfunded and no longer has the ability to project power. This all comes to a head when an American military base in Djibouti is attacked and taken over. With the US no longer able to respond to events such as these, Jeff's PMC, Praetorians, are contracted to handle the situation. The guy that wrote it is a former Recon Marine, so similar to Jack Murphy, he's been there, done that, and it shows. If you want hardcore action, this is another solid book for you. The plot is a bit out there, but hey, fuck it, it's fun.

Moving away from fiction...

Level Zero Heroes - Written by one of the first MARSOC dudes that went into Afghanistan when MARSOC was first stood up. He's his MSOC's forward air controller, and it's just a pretty cool and interesting look into the special operations world from a new (at the time) SOF unit.

Horse Soldiers - About the first ODA that went into Afghanistan within weeks of 9/11. They worked really closely with CIA SAD, and it's an incredibly interesting write up on what these guys managed to do in incredibly austere conditions. They rolled around the country on horseback. That's bad ass.

First In - Similar to Horse Soldiers, but written by one of the CIA paramilitary officers that coordinated with the Northern Alliance and the SF ODAs when they first came in country. A bit dry, but if you're interested in this sort of thing, it's one of the best (and only, from its perspective) accounts of the early parts of the Global War On Terror.

Now for some non military stuff.

Dune - The best sci-fi novel ever written, bar none. It has political intrigue, an oppressed people against an overwhelmingly larger force, oh, and giant sandworms. It's hard to describe just how rich the world of Dune is in a simple paragraph, so I won't even try. If you're into sci-fi and you haven't read Dune, you owe it to yourself. You're in for a treat.

The Road - The bleakest thing I've ever read. It takes place after some type of apocalyptic event in the US (which is never detailed), and is the story of a father and his young son attempting to survive in the wasteland amongst cannibals that keep their "livestock," chained in a basement, roving bands of marauders, and other horrors. It's written in an incredibly minimalist style which adds to the tone and atmosphere so much. If you want something heavy, this is your book.

I'll probably add more but here are my recommendations for now.

u/PentiumIII · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

[This] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Islamic-State-Sunni-Revolution/dp/1784780405) book is a very good explaining how ISIS rise from the ashes of Iraqis Al-Qaeda.

u/OleToothless · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

u/Sarkadelic · 2 pointsr/samharris

If you liked Weiss, his book with Hassan Hassan ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror is a pretty deep dive in the history and formation within the larger context. Also apparently 64% off right now on Amazon.

u/CWFP · 2 pointsr/politics

Ok look at Abu Ghraib then. They investigated it and marked it secret as an attempt to cover it up until it leaked in 2004. Page 264

u/agfa12 · 2 pointsr/de

>I write this article
for the same reason I wrote my book:
to tell the American people,
and especially American Jews,
that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate
willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave,
Jews killed Jews; and that,
to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands,
Jews on numerous occasions
rejected genuine peace initiatives
from their Arab neighbors.
I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism."
I write about it because I was part of it.

u/whiskeyisneat · 2 pointsr/ChristopherHitchens

You can look at all his articles on Slate (starting here) where he argues for the Iraq war. They are the same articles that he put into A Long Short War his book justifying his stance on the Iraq war.

u/SomethingInThatVein · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Your assertion that there is absolutely no state-sponsored influence on any facets of American media, and that there are no power players who involve themselves in advertising, is obviously, categorically false. Your argument is founded solely on either naivety or misinformation. I'd recommend to everybody seeing this read The Dictator's Handbook, NY Times best-selling Dark Money, and maybe even Pulitzer-prize winning Black Flag for a more in-depth study on the complicated issue of how exactly we're manipulated and exploited.

u/rogersII · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

700,000 Palestinian men, women and children didn't "declare" war on anyone and winners of wars don't get to ethnically-cleanse the people of their OCCUPIED territory. And the "genocidal war" was carried out by Israeli forces against Palestinians.

And the idea that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel is somehow justified by what goes on in Iraq or Morocco on the basis that, "Heck, they're all just Arabs" is not only racist and morally reprehensible, it is in fact a FAKE argument that the Israelis themselves rejected until recently - until it became convenient to exploit the Mizrahi

http://www.timesofisrael.com/foreign-ministry-promotes-the-jewish-refugee-problem/

http://972mag.com/spineless-bookkeeping-the-use-of-mizrahi-jews-as-pawns-against-palestinian-refugees/56472/

Furthermore, this also overlooks Israels' own role in the explusion of Jews from Arab lands, including the policy of "cruel Zionism" which included bombing Jewish communities in Baghdad in order to scare them into migrating to Israel. http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Gurions-Scandals-Haganah-Mossad-Eliminated/dp/1893302407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410643725

u/DrMarianus · 2 pointsr/ProjectMilSim

After loads of reading on the bus to work every day, here follows my reading list for military aviation:


Modern

  • Viper Pilot - memoir of an F-16 Wild Weasel pilot who flew in both Iraq Wars
  • A Nightmare's Prayer - memoir of a Marine Harrier Pilot flying out of Bagram.
  • Warthog - Story of the A-10C pilots and their many varied missions in Desert Storm
  • Hornets over Kuwait - Memoir of a Marine F/A-18 pilot during Desert Storm
  • Strike Eagle - Story of the brand new F-15C Strike Eagle pilots and their time in Desert Storm

    Vietnam

  • The Hunter Killers - look at the very first Wild Weasels, their inception, early development, successes, and failures
  • Low Level Hell - memoir of an OH-6 Air Cav pilot

    WWII

  • Unsung Eagles - various snapshots of the less well-known but arguably more impactful pilots and their missions during WWII (pilot who flew channel rescue in a P-47, morale demonstration pilot, etc.)
  • Stuka Pilot - memoir of the most prolific aviator of Nazi Germany (and an unapologetic Nazi) who killed hundreds of tanks with his cannon-armed Stuka
  • The First Team - more academic historical look at the first US Naval Aviators in WWII


    Overall/Other

  • Skunk Works - memoir of Ben Rich, head of Lockeed's top secret internal firm and his time working on the U-2, SR-71, and F-117 including anecdotes from pilots of all 3 and accounts of these remarkable planes' exploits.
  • Lords of the Sky - ambitious attempt to chronicle the rise and evolution of the "fighter pilot" from WWI to the modern day
  • Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs - the story of the long-top secret group of pilots who evaluated and flew captured Soviet aircraft against US pilots to train them against these unknown foes.
  • Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage - story of the US submarine fleet starting at the outbreak of the Cold War and their exploits



    Bonus non-military aviation

    I highly second the recommendations of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and Diamond Age. I would also recommend:

  • Neuromancer - defined the cyberpunk genre
  • Ghost in the Wires - memoir of prolific hacker Kevin Mitnick
  • Starship Troopers - nothing like the movie
  • The Martian - fantastic read
  • Heir to the Empire - first of the Star Wars Thrawn Trilogy and the book that arguably sparked the growth of the Extended Universe of Star Wars
  • Devil in the White City - semi-fictional (mostly non-fiction) account of a serial killer who created an entire palace to capture and kill his prey during the Chicago World's Fair
  • Good Omens - dark comedy story of a demon and an angel trying to stop the end of the world because they like us too much
  • American Gods - fantastic story about how the old gods still walk among us
  • Dune - just read it
u/rddt1983 · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East is a good summary of Carter-to-present.

u/tonydiv · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

On the note of Muslims, I learned a lot from this book below. It's a Pulitzer Prize winner and contains information that was collected directly from the military who served there.

To say all Muslims are the same is not true. There are Sunnis, Shiites, and various jihadist groups in nearly a dozen countries. A majority of them do not believe in Sharia Law. Some of these people are the reason we gathered the intelligence to kill Osama Bin Ladin, Zarqawi, and many others.

The situation in the middle east is horrifying, and we cannot afford to denounce them all as terrible people. We have allies there who help us tremendously.

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick/dp/0804168938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478742702&sr=8-1&keywords=black+flags

u/5shiny5 · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

It's not the US consensus that they've stopped; the Israelis say the same thing (washingtoninstitute is AIPAC, AIPAC is the Israeli government).

As far as I can tell, the only entities who are under the impression that the Qatar/KSA dispute is about something other than the gulf states being mad that Qatar supports Iran and terrorism, generally, are lefty fake news merchants (Mother Jones, Salon, etc).

The Haaretz article is BS. They cite something Qatar did two weeks ago, but UAE and KSA have been freaked out about Qatar's activities for at least 3 years (but more like 6).

The co-author of probably the best book about ISIS had this to say about the situation, which can be summarized as "the gulf is pissed at Qatar for exactly the reasons they say they are--support for Iran and support for terrorism."

u/sigurdz · 1 pointr/syriancivilwar

>but not with multiple different books.

You're out of luck then, your only hope at getting a solid basic understanding is reading at the bare minimum a few. I'd suggest reading one focusing on the Islamic State/AQI, one focusing on the Kurdish situation including Turkey and the PKK, one on the civil war (rebels vs regime), and one about the conflict in general.

Couple of recommendations

The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East

Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in the Syrian Kurdistan

The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency

u/sticky-bit · 1 pointr/The_Donald
  • Diplomat's daughter, so immunity that way
  • Wasn't sworn in to testify, so perjury isn't an option
  • The testimony looked like a congressional hearing, so to pull off the propaganda coup they needed help from members of congress and probably the media

    Hey everybody, it's not fair to call this one a crazy conspiracy theory, because the American public bought it hook, line, and sinker. A brilliant propaganda scheme, it certainly looked like the whole nation was 100% behind military action.

    I remember huge yellow ribbons tied around building. Any protests were flat-out ignored by the press, with the only exception I can remember being a few people in DC on Independence Day after our victory. (They were made to do the 'perp walk' into Federal Court, and that made the news.) No real independent media back then, the web didn't even have "geocities" or "hotmail" yet and the web was in the pre-Eternal September stage.

    Yea, Saddam was a tyrant. We did kick butt, but our Arab masters in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia forbade the conquering of Baghdad and the occupying of Iraq.

    If anyone wants to sample the propaganda, look for a book called: The Rape of Kuwait: The True Story of Iraqi Atrocities. This mass-market paperback was in every grocery store at the time and is available now (used) for pocket change on ebay or amazon.

    Spez: added links, fixed markdown links
u/frogsytriangles · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Put very very simply...

ISIS, aka ISIL, aka IS (Islamic State), aka Daesh, is a group that currently rules territory in portions of Iraq and Syria. Their aim is to create a state ruled by an extremely strict interpretation of Sunni Islam, and they believe themselves to be fulfilling religious prophecy, one of the groups discussed in Islamic eschatology; their official magazine is named Dabiq after the down of Dabiq, where a Sunni Hadith declares that during the apocalypse "an army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina" to repel the armies of Rome. THey believe they are that army and anticipate an apocalyptic battle.

They are notorious for the severity of their laws (women must remain indoors when not with husbands or fathers, thieves suffer amptuations, public music results in beatings) and the brutality with which they enforce them, along with their terrorist tactics against their enemies (meaning: directly targeting civilians to frighten and intimidate people into surrendering). Their activities extend to things considered gross human rights violations by everyone but them -- using child soldiers, mass rape, slavery, mass executions.

If you are interested in reading further, I would recommend the essay What ISIS Really Wants by Graeme Wood and the book The Rise of Islamic State by Patrick Cockburn.

u/Ragdolla · 1 pointr/todayilearned

North Korea was and still is backed by China. Invading NK would have lead to god knows what. As for the "no evidence to base an invasion." That statement is pretty ridiculous. Literally decades of turmoil and terror to his own people as well as endangering those bordering Iraq, Saddam needed to be taken out sooner or later. Since no country would object to it, fuck it, we might as well go in and help the country out. Again, it seems that the good intent of the US to rid a country from the death grip of a dictator gets more criticism than the horrendous acts of the regime itself.

It seems as though the biggest anti-war and humanitarian people have the least worry for people living under the rule of savages around the world. Taking the "it's not our problem" stance is becoming shockingly more prevalent. Of course it's our problem, we're humans. Just because it's happening over there and across an imaginary border does not mean we should ignore the injustices inflicted on innocent people.

Hindsight is 20/20. You can find a million things to pick apart how the intervention in Iraq played out, but people seem to attack events that were not planned nor wished for. I'm simply saying that the initial invasion was a completely justifiable and necessary choice.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Short-War-Postponed-Liberation/dp/0452284988

Have a read of this book

u/Compared-To-What · 1 pointr/worldnews

This take might be a little spicy but don't a large percentage of the Muslim community believe in the more radical stuff? Generally, in regards to Christians, they are way past taking the bible literal.

I read the book [Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS] (https://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick-ebook/dp/B00RRT346E/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DLB8LK490GQT&keywords=black+flags+the+rise+of+isis&qid=1574865998&sprefix=black+flags+%2Caps%2C163&sr=8-1), which is a fantastic book, I got the recommendation from a summer reading list of Bill Gates. The actual points are a little blurry but I remember the book saying that in the height of the terrorist attacks taking place in Jordan & Iraq that the goverments, to deter radical terrorists, had to get religious scholars of the Muslim religion to basically re-interpret the Quran so that people wouldn't take the radical parts so literal.

Again, I know there are many Muslims who don't believe the radical stuff but I wouldn't say the people who follow more of the archaic writings are a small group either.

u/Velaseri · 1 pointr/conspiracy

LOL liberals are anti-war? They are as big of warmongers as reactionaries are. They just hide it behind a veneer of "compassion".

You've obviously been fed a steady diet of Americiana propaganda and can't see through the narrative. Republicans might (usually) set things in motion, but democrats continue the legacy.

Kennedy and his administration supported a coup against the Iraqi government, a coup led by Abdul Salam Arif. The US and British forces supported the Hussein Regime for decades, because of the JFK conducted/funded regime change - JFK was driving with the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein.

Clinton, acted without the authorization of the United Nations when he sent NATO to slaughter civilians; Amnesty International considers it a war crime. He carried on the wars the republicans set in motion, without hesitation. Hillary Clinton was a key architect of the NATO intervention in Libya and is a war criminal under international law.

Obama, used drones, continued on Guantánamo Bay, refused to prosecute those responsible or even to allow the release of much more than the summary of a comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee report, he widened domestic and foreign surveillance; and authorized the CIA (Gulf Cooperation Council) led military operations.

Roosevelt denied aid to Polish troops who were fighting against the Soviet government, and suppressed a report that blamed the Katyn massacre on the Soviets.

Half a million Iraqi children died as a result of US sanctions and bombing of Iraqi infrastructure - carnage begun by Daddy Bush and continued by Bill Clinton, and then again with Bush Junior.

Democrats aren't just republicans enablers, they routinely carry the torch. Democrats regularly support operations such as Operation Condor, Operation AJAX, Timber Sycamore etc... It doesn't matter if the president is a democrat or a republican, they all support/continue the resource wars financed and orchestrated by their intelligence agencies, they are all accomplices in global predation.

Azizabad airstrike, Haditha massacre, Abu Ghraib, My Lai, No Gun Ri...

​

Ellen fucking DeGeneres, cuddled up with coke head Bush (another US war criminal and anti-LGBT crusader) because liberals convictions don't extend beyond "woke" brands. You liberals, look exactly the same as reactionaries; you just dress it up in fancier packages.

This is what really gets me about liberals. Republicans slaughter innocent people = bad (as it should be), democrats slaughter innocent people = it was a necessity. That is the level of the liberal hypocrisy and dissonance. As long as the demoractic leader can regurgitate pretty words, their actions don't matter.

The democratic party has never been anti-war, they have (like their republican allies) been proponents of US interventionism all over the globe. And the good little liberal bootlickers just parrot the media portrayal.

It is exactly as I thought, you wont answer me because you can't. Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds.

https://www.amazon.com/Web-Deceit-History-Complicity-Churchill/dp/1590512383

u/S4R_ben · 1 pointr/CombatFootage

Horse Soldiers, fantastic book about the first ODA's in Afghanistan.

u/oscarboom · 1 pointr/conspiracy


> LOL liberals are anti-war? They are as big of warmongers as reactionaries are.

It is weird how little you understand about America. You are the first person I've ever heard say something as bizzare as that. It is really hard to take you seriously. Here are pages and pages of liberal anti-war protestors.

https://www.google.com/search?q=liberal+protest+vietnam&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4_v_NyrrlAhVIY6wKHRKYC3AQsAR6BAgEEAE

You hardly give any details and no sources for your vague claims, but besides not being remotely comparable to the wars started by the GOP I listed, they are riddled with obvious errors like this one:

>JFK was driving with the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein.

JFK was not alive when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq. He wasn't even alive when his predecessor or predecessor's predecessor was in power in Iraq.

>You liberals, look exactly the same as reactionaries;

Do reactionaires have endless pictures of huge crowds of anti-war protestors like liberals do in the link above? If they have that exact same look maybe get your vision checked.

>https://www.amazon.com/Web-Deceit-History-Complicity-Churchill/dp/1590512383

[In February 1991, the Shia of southern Iraq rose against Saddam Hussein. Barry M. Lando, a former investigative producer for 60 Minutes, argues compellingly that this ill-fated uprising represents one instance among many of Western complicity in Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity. ]

Dude, your own book link here is criticizing Bush for NOT intervening in Iraq. You can't even decide if you are pro or anti-war. Blame America for not going to war. Blame America for going to war. Your only consistency is "blame America for everything".

u/nordasaur · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

Not sure if you remember but I had asked about books on ISIS 2 months ago and you gave some good responses.

What do you think about this book?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1784780405?keywords=ISIS&qid=1453840359&ref_=sr_1_10&sr=8-10

u/asatroth · 1 pointr/neoliberal

Read Endgame.

u/admorobo · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

It isn't objective, but Descent Into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid is one of the best pieces of journalism on the War in Afghanistan I've ever read. For what it's worth, I'm a veteran who did a tour in eastern Afghanistan and found his insights spot-on.

EDIT: For Iraq, I'd recommend Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama both by Michael Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor.

u/RiffFantastic · 1 pointr/PoliticalVideo

> Also, while we're talking about foreign affairs, how do you feel about the specific targeting of civilian women and children? Trump has expressly advocated for it. How do you not find that repugnant? How do you feel about torture--not "advanced interrogation techniques"--actual torture?
>

You're going to talk about a bullshit Fox News narrative and then go digging in the gutters for that garbage. When questioned about this Trump sited the San Bernardino terrorists family members that were complicit in the attack they carried out. Some of those family members have since been arrested by the current administration (Obama). He was also probably trying to ensure situations wouldn't arise where the surviving family members would profit from these attacks. See the article below for the action that is now being taken by the current administration (Not Trump). This all seems reasonable to me.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-attack-life-insurance-lawsuit-20160531-snap-story.html

And are you seriously that fucking disturbed about water boarding? Is that what you're calling actual torture? These people just beheaded a priest in a church today. We should go a lot further than we have been. Our rules of engagement are a joke.

And you're right. Hillary Clinton is not solely to blame for the rise of ISIS. President Obama can also take some of the credit for trying to solve this issue through air strikes and arming rebels alone. It's been documented in several sources that weapons turned over to moderate rebels inevitably end up in the hands of ISIS. All this because of their obsession with ousting Assad. This should all be common knowledge by now from the daily reports published in the mainstream media, but here's a book that's spells it out easy enough for you to understand if you're seriously that far behind.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Islamic-State-Sunni-Revolution/dp/1784780405

I also love that you seem to have no problem with all the overwhelming evidence of a rigged primary. Bernie was fundraising for Hillary all along. No big deal, right? Because ZOMG TRUMP!

u/6DemonBag · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Suggested further reading: Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton.

http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522

u/grandpagotstitches · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I've read great things about Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. It was just released a few months ago so I'm hoping it will help me better understand current events and Obama's presidency.

Also, I thought his book American Empire was interesting, which he published in 2002. Bacevich is, by the way, a conservative. I don't want to misrepresent his ideas, so I encourage you to read the book. But there's an idea I marked that I'll quote.

> When it comes to the fundamentals of U.S. policy...continuities loom large...In practice, Clinton and his advisers drew on basic ideas that Bush (41) and his team had already put in play and that, indeed, formed the received wisdom of American statecraft accumulated across a century or more.

> In that regard, five ideas stand out—each one embraced by Bush, each figuring in Clinton’s rearticulation of U.S. strategy: the identification of interdependence as the dominant reality of international politics; a commitment to advancing the cause of global openness; an emphasis on free trade and investment as central to that strategy and a prerequisite for prosperity at home; a belief in the necessity of American hegemony—while avoiding any actual use of that term; and frequent reference to the bugbear of “isolationism” as a means of disciplining public opinion and maintaining deference to the executive branch in all matters pertaining to foreign relations.

edit: i didn't mention the arab spring, as for that, i recalled a passage from a theory of international terrorism (free pdf can be found online)

> If Islamic political parties were allowed to contest elections, they are feared to win elections on anti-US and anti-Israel platforms.13 In Jordan and Egypt, for example, anti-Israel religious parties would easily sweep freely held general elections. If democratically elected Islamic parties come to power, they would denounce the peace treaties with Israel and adopt anti-US foreign policies. Knowing this, Israelis see an existential threat in democratization of the Muslim world. Since US national interests may diverge from those of Israel, a democratic Muslim world may drive a wedge between Israel and the US. If the US were to sacrifice its own interests for the sake of preserving the US-Israel alliance, a democratic Muslim world would be further estranged from the US. In either case, free democ- racy in the Middle East would pose new challenges to US military, security, and economic interests in the world. To avoid these developments, both the US and Israel support a distorted notion of democracy that suppresses religious parties from contesting elections and assuming power.


u/paperclipzzz · 1 pointr/news

I think maybe you would benefit from a deeper understanding of the jihadi movement as a whole, and how ISIS differs from al Qaeda, and how both of them differ from groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It's entirely possible for a lone-wolf conservative Muslim to be so enraged by Western culture that he blows himself up at an Ariana Grande concert, but the groups mentioned above all have distinct objectives. It's not hatred of Western culture that motivates them - they hate the West, or claim to when it's convenient, but that's not what gets them out of bed in the morning. Al Qaeda isn't much of a player these days, but basically, OBL and al-Zawahiri believed they could restore the Muslim world to its past glory by freeing Mecca & Medina from the rule of a Saudi monarchy corrupted by American influence. Their plan for doing so was to attack countries, like the US, with governments that kept the House of Saud in power, making it too painful to continue that support - leaving Mecca and Medina ripe for recapture by "real" Muslims, after which god would bless all of Islam. Yes, it's true.

ISIS apparently takes things a step farther, and adds the element of eschatology: literally everyone except ISIS (including other Salafist jihadis who deviate from ISIS' dogma in the slightest) is the in the witting or unwitting service of the Antichrist. It remains to be seen how committed ISIS leadership is to the group's rhetorical and theological positions - apparently, a lot of the top people are former Ba'athists who lost power when Saddam Hussein fell - but basically, the idea is that attacks against the West will inspire the West to retaliate, which will unite all Muslims behind ISIS, cause the Madhi to emerge and Christ to return.

Again, the common thread is that attacks against the west are a means to an end, and the end in both cases is the purification of Islam - which is to be expected for movements rooted in/related to Wahhabism.

u/whyamicoldallthetime · 1 pointr/army

Not a usual recommendation, but Billy Waugh will provide you with the unconventional for sure, which I think every conventional officer should be fairly knowledgeable in convetional and asymmetrical manners of warfare. There isn't necessarily too much truly in-depth, but the nature of his work during the early recent era's are introspective.

The main trilogy I think every officer should read is a trilogy that has a heavy emphasis on the incompetency of leadership during World War 2, known as the 'Liberation Trilogy', by Rick Atkinson:
https://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Trilogy-Boxed-Set/dp/1627790594

And here is the one on Billy Waugh and the gang:
https://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522

u/quintinza · 1 pointr/CombatFootage

If you can get a hold of it, read "Horse Soldiers" which is the story of these guys and their efforts in Northern Afghanistan. It is really gripping and tells the story of how the war on Terror started very well.

http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522

u/Pfe1223 · 1 pointr/knifeclub

Have you read The Gamble? One of my favorite modern war books. I got sucked into the whole counter insurgency debate several years ago and read as much as I could.

https://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Petraeus-American-Military-Adventure/dp/0143116916/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1502060195&sr=8-3&keywords=the+gamble

u/goldflakes · 1 pointr/Libertarian

They didn't "come to America," but yes of course the conflict between the United States and the Islamic world started before the events you outlined. I'll outline the relevant points as summarily as I can. For brevity, I will include history only related to the United States and not broader Western civilization. The case of the United States is salient and representative.

History of Islam: Muhammad to 1776

Muhammad first began teaching among Pagan Arabs who were more or less friendly until he began to teach that there is only one God and all other religions' followers shall burn in hell. When they began to threaten him and his people, he fled to Mecca and Medina, subsequently taking over the western half of Saudi Arabia along with the eastern tip (Oman). Almost all secular scholars of the Qur'an agree that it is as much a political guidebook (how to run a society) as a religious text (how to be a good person). Upon his death in 632, his followers interpreted the book as they did, and a system of Caliphates began to rule the Islamic world. By 661, all of what we call the Middle East and northeastern Africa was under the Caliphate. By the 8th century, the Caliphate had extended to include land from Spain to Pakistan. This was unsustainable militarily (given few people liked being ruled under Islamic law), so it was pulled back. The Turkish peoples were to become the new military force of the Caliphate, and took Constantinople just before Columbus "found" the "New World." When the United States declared independence, Abdul Hamid I was sultan, with even Baghdad under his rule (that article makes him sound friendlier than he actually was -- he was compelled to sign treaties after military defeats).

Barbary Slaves and Pirating

Before the United States had first elected Washington as President, the Congress found itself at odds with the Caliphate controlled lands. At this time, the Muslim world was taking Europeans and Americans as slaves, estimates are that as many as 1.25 million slaves were taken from the Western world (source: Robert Davis). John Adams, America's London ambassador, was sent to the Tripoli ambassador to discuss the matter, and was met with a demand of money for various levels of peace. Terms were set for the release of slaves, short term peace, and even a price for long term peace. The United States argued that it was a new nation. If their military had previously quarreled with Europe, that was of no concern to the United States. Could not peace with a new nation be had?

When Jefferson took the Presidency in 1801, he was immediately met with a demand of $4,000,000 (adjusted for inflation but not %GDP or federal budget) to be paid to the Muslim lands. Jefferson demanded repeatedly to know by what right these demands were made. By what right did they capture Americans as slaves, seize her ships, take her property, and demand payment in exchange?

> The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners.

Thomas Jefferson to Congress and the State Department

Barbary Wars to Usama bin Laden

President Jefferson found himself in the fortunate position of having a capable Navy that he, ironically enough, had fought against funding before being elected. With it, he began the first conflict between the United States and the Caliphate. The second line of the Marine Anthem (To the shores of Tripoli) celebrates the result even today. Congress authorized Jefferson to use the full might of the United States Navy to suppress the military aggression, with permission to seize and destroy property as the Navy was able. The language was quite strong and general.

The modern Islamic revival that began in the 1970s has seen a large surge in the total Muslim population, which we must admit is in some sense responsible for the recent surge of the lower jihad as well (this being the military jihad as opposed to the higher jihad meaning an inner struggle). Al Qaeda's number one demand was restoration of the Caliphate. The crime for which America has been subject to the violence from the radical Islamists was committed after approval by the Saudi royal family to use American troops to free Kuwait from Iraq rather than using their own, limited resources and relying heavily on the local mujahidin. In other words, Usama bin Laden was angry with America because he thought that local insurgents could fight Saddam the same way they had in Afghanistan against the Soviets rather than relying on smart bombs to do the same. (He forgot, or perhaps never knew, that Afghanistan was liberated only through American assistance. People who assert the unsophisticated non-distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban forget this. America gave aid to the Taliban, not The Base.)

Also central to crimes committed by the United States in Bin Laden's mind was our admission that we had begun to support the right of East Timor to self determination of government. Here is one of his first speeches after the 2001 attacks.. Ctrl+f "east timor" to see that his complaint is that the Caliphate's maximum extent is no longer in effect, with the world recognizing that the military devastation committed by Indonesia was invalid.

Specific Points: Iran in WWII, The Taliban, Gulf War vs. bin Laden, and Diplomacy

So, yes, the Barbary wars happened before the Iranian coup. Keep in mind also that 1953 is also after 1945 when Nazi Germany surrendered. At that time, Iran was already under the full control of Britain and Russia (mostly the British), essentially a colony like India was. This invasion was necessary because Reza Shah was attempting to play neutral while supplying the Nazi war machine with crude oil necessary for its logistical world domination. "Iran" in Persian means "The Land of the Aryans," which Persia abruptly changed its name to in 1935, just as it was becoming friendly toward the Germans. After the war was over, Britain had a number of privately owned fields, purchased legally from the owners of the land. When Iran elected Mosaddegh to nationalize the oilfields, they did so illegally. Their country or not, the heart of libertarianism is the right to free exchange and free markets. Unless you agree that the United States can simply seize the property of any foreign corporation who operates in any way through the United States, you cannot support the right of anyone, anywhere to loot by law. The course of action taken by the West was perhaps morally wrong. But it was in response to a moral wrong, not the initiation of one. I find that very few internet historians know the history of Iran before 1953. This has always seemed odd to me -- where are you all getting your similarly edited information?

The military bases in Islamic lands were widely supported at the time by both governments and peoples. They still celebrate it as a national day of pride. Again, bin Laden considers this the great evil of America because he wanted the local mujahidin to fight Saddam rather than bringing in any Western aid. You may freely be against the Gulf War, but you cannot rationalize that the intervention was innately immoral since the United States determined that losing control of the Kuwait and Saudi oilfields would have been damaging to her interests. In other words, the United States did not initiate force but responded to the initiation of force upon a friend.

The United States used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Empire. I fail to see this as a moral evil.

The United States necessarily has diplomatic relations with all countries who are willing, including bad guys. Egyptians and Tunisians far and away have more warm feelings for the United States than ill-feelings. Only with sources such as Russia Today can you attempt to support the notion that we stood between these leaders and their people. The West was crucial to their overthrow, including freezing of their foreign assets.

Recommended Reading

Islamic Radicalism and Global Jihad History of radical Islam and current resurgence. Takes a look at the old scholars and new.

The Looming Tower Everything leading up to 9/11

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters Details the Barbary coast slave trade

The Trial of Henry Kissinger Outlines US war crimes

Qur'an My English translation.

Instructions for American Servicemen in Iran During World War II Self explanatory.

The Forever War Solidly good book.

The Rape of Kuwait Iraq war crimes in Kuwait


Edits

  • Corrected a couple subject-verb agreements.

  • Added section headers.

  • Added recommended reading list.

  • Reworked a paragraph in the last section.