The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam’s War Against America
Benjamin, Daniel, and Steven Simon. 2003. The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam’s War Against America. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Rating:
6
Summary:
The book covers a lot of territory, but seems to focus on three elements of terrorism. First, the book details some of the specific terrorist attacks prior to the September 11th attack in 2001 (e.g., the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc.). It doesn’t, however, deal in depth with the 9/11 attacks, which I assume is because the details were (and likely still are) unknown at the writing of the book.
The second element of terrorism covered is the approach to handling terrorism by U.S. politicians and civil servants. One individual that is discussed in some depth is terrorism ‘czar’ Richard Clarke (who has now written his own book). The book also examines the Clinton Administration’s approach to dealing with Al Qaeda and terrorism in depth.
Finally, the authors combine an analysis of why they think terrorists are targeting the U.S. with suggestions for how to defend the U.S. from terrorist attacks and what changes need to be made to make the U.S. safer.
Review:
good account of early terrorist attacks; lacking in some areas
It’s unfortunate that this book has as many problems as it does. Had a good editor demanded that the authors present a clear, understandable outline for presenting their insights on terrorism, this could have been a powerful and clear analysis of what some are labeling ‘the new age of terror.’
But, this book falls pretty short in presenting clear and lucid arguments and analyses. The biggest problem is that there is no clear layout to the book. It begins with detailed accounts of the terrorist attacks of the 1990s and ends with the authors’ suggestions for preventing future attacks. But in the middle the discussion bounces around from discussing Osama bin Laden to an analysis of the counter-terrorism agencies in the U.S. arsenal to an analysis of the Bush Administrations failings to heed the warnings of the outgoing Clinton Administration as to the threat of Al Qaeda to justifications for Al Qaeda’s desire to attack the U.S., in no apparent order. Sometimes the authors have important and insightful things to say (some are discussed below), but because their important thoughts are mixed in with seemingly unrelated thoughts, the insightful stuff more often than not falls through the cracks.
The book also makes some questionable claims. For instance, it argues that the age of religious terrorism began with the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan in 1990. Why they choose this particular incident as the beginning of religious based terrorism goes unexplained. As a student of religion, I seem to recall numerous examples of people dying for their religion and even terrorizing members of other religions because of their beliefs (Palestinians have been bombing and sniping Israelis – and vice versa – for years). The authors also present some interesting population forecasts for some of the more populous Islamic countries (Pakistan, Iran, etc.) that are particularly far-fetched. Yes, it’s true these countries are growing rapidly and have high birth rates. But what the authors don’t take into consideration is the fact that these countries do not have the resources to feed that many people. War, famines, or other disasters are likely going to limit the growth (though I won’t make any solid predictions as Paul Ehrlich has shown that is a good way to undermine one’s argument when/if it proves wrong). Their growth projections, when considered in this light, come across more as a tactic to invoke fear of the growth of Islam than as factual calculations.
Another problem with the authors’ analysis is their take on religion in the U.S. While there are some researchers (Rodney Stark for one) who argue that religion and religiosity are not declining in the U.S., a more nuanced analysis reveals that there is a type of decline going on, though it is better understood as a dichotomization. The religious are doing one of two things: 1) growing more fundamentalistic and, as a result, they both appear more religious and are more noticeable. 2) They are leaving religion. The number of non-religious people (including atheists and agnostics) is slowly increasing in the U.S. as is the number affiliated with conservative Christian religions. The religions that fall between these two – moderate and liberal Christian religions – are declining in numbers. Thus, while one could argue that there is a growing religious presence in the U.S. due to the increasingly vocal fundamentalists, it is inaccurate to claim that religions in the U.S. are growing and the overall level of religiosity is increasing. The more accurate statement is: conservative religions are growing while the level of religiosity is either remaining the same (thanks to the fundamentalist boost) or declining.
While they did make some erroneous claims, the authors also made some good points. For instance, the authors make an interesting distinction between Arafat’s terrorism in Palestine and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism against the U.S. and other Westernized countries. The authors argue that Arafat uses terrorism strategically to improve his bargaining positions whereas bin Laden uses it tactically to kill. According to the authors, Osama isn’t interested in bargaining; he just wants to kill infidels in the name of Ala. I hadn’t considered this notion and, while I think Juergensmeyer’s book (2000) is generally a clearer analysis of why terrorists do what they do, this is a point that Juergensmeyer does not make. While I don’t think this distinction always holds true, I think there is some merit to it, so… Point for Benjamin and Simon.
The authors do get the threat of fundamentalism right, a threat outlined clearly by Kenneth Wald (2003). The basic problem with fundamentalists is that they are unwilling to negotiate a truce or peace because that would mean they are both acquiescing to the opponent of their god and they would no longer be doing the will of their god. Either way, they would not be following their precepts. For instance, fundamentalist Christians are not content with not having abortions themselves; they insist that no one can have abortions. Because they are unwilling to compromise on this issue, it will not desist until fundamentalism disappears, an event that would be much heralded by most non-fundamentalists but an event that is likely fairly distant. Because fundamentalists are so unwilling to compromise, they are a serious threat to democracy. The authors do get this point right.
I’m not sure how to categorize another element of the book. Basically, the authors speak very highly of both Richard Clark and Bill Clinton and present them as doggedly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks. While I’m sure they were concerned about terrorism, one almost gets the impression that the authors have a political bias that they don’t reveal. I don’t have a problem with people taking sides, as long as they admit it (which is why Bill O’Reilly bugs me). So, I’m not sure if their praise of Clinton and Clark is a positive or negative of the book.
Overall, the book is informative on several points, but I think a clearer analysis of the motivations of terrorism is presented by Mark Juergensmeyer in his book ‘Terror in the Mind of God.’ The authors cite Juergensmeyer and even try to re-hash some of his arguments, but they don’t do it very clearly. What this book does offer is an insider glance at how the Clinton and Bush administrations dealt with terrorism. The authors’ treatment isn’t particularly favorable of the Bush administrations attempts to curb terrorism. Some will probably find this biased; I’m not sure that it is. But I’m also unwilling to point fingers – 9/11 was unfortunate and, ultimately, the blame rests on Al Qaeda and not on any particular administration or branch of the government. Because it isn’t always clear, I have to label this an interesting but sometimes confusing read. I’d suggest Jurgensmeyer’s book instead – it’s both more representative of religious terrorism in general and more clearly presented.