Best african politics books according to redditors

A book if you're interested



EDIT: The book is "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" by Nick Turse



It released in 2015 and documents the growing number of secret US military operations across Africa, investigates the purpose of these operations, and gives predictions for what directions these operations will take and how they will affect all countries involved.




Here is the book description:


"You won’t see segments about it on the nightly news or read about it on the front page of America’s newspapers, but the Pentagon is fighting a new shadow war in Africa, helping to destabilize whole countries and preparing the ground for future blowback. Behind closed doors, U.S. officers now claim that “Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today. In Tomorrow’s Battlefield, award-winning journalist and bestselling author Nick Turse exposes the shocking true story of the U.S. military’s spreading secret wars in Africa."

This article is full of hatred, hyperbole, and vitriol. It does nothing to benefit the current situation in the Middle East.

To begin with, O'Neill's understanding of morality and history is spotty at best. Like a large majority of Western commentators, he attempts to define the actions of the Islamic militants as the result of sociopathy and ignorance. It is true that there is a large amount of ignorance within Islamic extremism, especially among the rank and file, and the moral system that guides these extremists is very different from contemporary Western humanist morality. This does not mean these factors are the primary motives of extremist Islamic groups. Rather, Islamic militarism is at its core the same kind of revolt against oppression that has been occurring since humans began to conquer one another, adapted to fit the needs of a society that is mostly impotent against the intervention of vastly superior military.

I do not seek to justify the actions of these extremists. However, I find the level of ignorance regarding the motives and reasoning of these groups to be horrific, and I believe this ignorance of the causes and philosophy of Qutbism only leads to more violence and eliminates any possibility of peace.

>What we have today, uniquely in human history, is a terrorism that ... has no clear political goals and no stated territorial aims.

This statement shows a shocking amount of ignorance regarding Muslim terrorism. While the actions of these extremists are inexcusable, their revolt is not an anomaly, it was born out of a real and well defined philosophy of a man named Sayyid Qutb, in response to the Western influence of his native Egypt. Qutb and his fledgling Muslum Brotherhood were in essence very similar to nearly every other resistance movement that sought to drive out an occupying power, with one exception: The Qur'an.
The Qu'ran has a large number of decrees against violence. Because of this Qutb was forced to use a complex and strained style of reasoning (very similar to the reasoning used by Fundamentalist Christians to justify why they can persecute homosexuals but don't have to give their wealth away) to develop a philosophic system of justified Islamic warfare (Jihad). All of the major Islamic terror groups are led by well educated individuals who are highly versed in the writings of Qutb and numerous other revolutionary figures. Their actions have very clear goals, and are not just haphazard bouts of violence.

When Osama Bin Laden began focusing his attention on American soil, he did so because he believed, based on his observations of the way Americans backed out of conflicts such as Vietnam and numerous South American revolutions as soon as it became costly and difficult, that if he and Al Qaeda were to make American occupation and intervention in the Middle East costly enough, we would eventually give up and leave them be. This was obviously a mistake, but it was a tactical error by a man driven into vicious rage by the current impotence of his once great faith, not the work of a sociopathic lunatic. Their assaults on innocent civilians of their own country are similarly justified. One of Qutb's biggest Qur'anic twists used to justify his terrorism was that people who are not Sunni are just as big of an enemy as Christians. Besides that, those of their own faith who happened to die collaterally would be rewarded in heaven, so it was OK to kill them. All of these are the result of having to warp the words of the Qur'an to justify the needs of his resistance movement, and the terrorism you see today is the result of these logical leaps and turns.

That is not to say that there isn't a epidemic of idiocy present within the Qutbists, but the idiocy if limited to the rank and file. Remember that people like Obama Bin Ladin and Ayman Zawahiri (A student of Qutb's) are not strapping bombs to themselves. Instead they are seeking out friendless, alienated, and uneducated members of the lower class, giving them a sense of community and purpose, and then sending them onward to their deaths. The less educated these people are, the easier they are to sucker into dying for them.

By continuing to consider our enemy's as merely barbarians, we are sweeping the issues that caused them to take up arms under the rug; issues that effect the entire population of the Middle East, not just the select few who choose the path of violence. If, instead of demonizing the terrorists and creating a gigantic rift of us vs. them, we were to spend our energy trying to bridge the divide between Islam and humanism much in the same way Qutb bridged the divide between Islam and violence, doing things like promoting the numerous fatwas against terrorism and actually LISTENING to the grievances of the Muslim world, perhaps peace would be possible. However, as long as we ignore the real issues plaguing the Middle East, and demonizing everyone who forces us to draw our attention to them, the Middle East will remain in the state that it is currently in.

Sources:

The Al Qaeda Reader

I've since sold the compilation book I had for my Islamic philosophy course with Qutb's essays in it and have forgotten its name, but anything that I read in it can probably be found here:

The Sayyid Qutb Reader

Agree. This could become a classic. Only one tiny little disclaimer on my part, where Obama "killed" Osama bin Laden, I think history will tell a different version of what actually happened in Pakistan, and I think there are a lot of people who already know that it was Obama's re-election ploy, and Osama bin Laden was probably not there. This credible research points out Obama Osama had not been heard from since December 2001, probably died then: https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831 and local villagers reported different events that night, including no second helicopter other than the one that was crashed. This is one video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMCmNUUX00o but there used to be a much more detailed interview with witnesses and neighbors, I wish I had it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHQkiIzYQZ8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYYKaOIh9aw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcstJBy9Ut8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcstJBy9Ut8

It is fascinating.

I think the Sept. 2000 From the Wilderness article and the Sept. 2000 The Media Bypass article are the best places to start. Especially the From the Wilderness article, as the author, Michael C. Ruppert, claims to have personal knowledge of many facts and most of the players (almost all former spooks or military people).

Both of these articles also cite other sources, like Cheri Seymour's 'The Last Circle' and Ari Ben-Menashe's 'Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network'.

Of course there was the Inslaw lawsuit where I imagine one can find good information. And there were press reports about the case, including New York Times articles (the very existence of which makes me suspicious). The publicly filed documents in the case may be easily obtainable but depositions may not be public and/or may be secret.

This is the Congressional report on the Inslaw case. James Norman's article in The Media Bypass magazine also references FBI documents that were "heavily redacted" but I don't know where those can be found. Mike Ruppert's article in From the Wilderness mentions numerous documents that he personally viewed but who knows who has those now or if they are publicly available.

The huge breadth of coverage of these sources is daunting. It will take a lot of work to nail them down and check the facts.

It's either that book or this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1936488868?pc_redir=1408890437&robot_redir=1

Of course. Or pressure their government to put sanctions on South Africa. Each case would need to be looked at individually and moreover take into account what one's government could do, perhaps with good intentions, under the guise of humanitarianism. How much of a chance is there to get our government to go into Darfur? What would occur if American troops went into Darfur? Would we set up a corrupt government and implement disastrous economic policies that wreck the economy and give all the contracts to corporations that not only waste funds but hire Americans rather than locals and leave infrastructure deteriorating leading to skyrocketing unemployment, crime and conflict as in Iraq?

You have to look at what the US government is institutionally capable of doing. I for one came to the conclusion that our government cannot, in general, be trusted to complete humanitarian missions a while ago, helped in part by reading Michael McClintock's Instruments of Statecraft (available in full online: http://www.statecraft.org) This is one of the hardest points to get through to people (it took ages for me) when they accept US military presence and funding as essentially benign.

You can see Chomsky emphasizing this point here: "One can imagine a world in which intervention is undertaken by some benign force dedicated to the interests of people who are suffering. But if we care about victims, we cannot make proposals for imaginary worlds. Only for this world, in which intervention, with rare consistency, is undertaken by powers dedicated to their own interests, where the victims and their fate is incidental, despite lofty professions.

The historical record is painfully clear, and there have been no miraculous conversions. That does not mean that intervention can never be justified, but these considerations cannot be ignored — at least, if we care about the victims."
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/noam-chomsky-interview-isis-syria-intervention-nato/

So to answer your question yes it is theoretically possible but rarely that straightforward. I cannot think of a time where Americans were able to get their government to enable in a humanitarian mission but plenty where they were able to mitigate what it was inflicting (South Africa, East Timor, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the list goes on). However if I thought it could be done and saw intervention as a worthy endeavor I would of course do so. However the only two examples I know of where a blatant act of invasion was justified was India into Bangledesh and North Vietnam into Cambodia, both of which were opposed by the United States (going so far as to send a nuclear submarine off the coast of India and telling its ambassadors in Bangledash to shut up as they were screaming to Kissinger America was supporting genocide; had it not been for the Soviet Union, yes THAT Soviet Union, sending its own sub to follow ours the ploy may have worked and the slaughter would have continued).

Given this observation and given that we are actively engaged in so many horrific policies (operation Columbia, unilaterally supporting the Israeli occupation, channeling millions of dollars in military aid to subsaharan Africa which has already enabled a coup in Mali (http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Battlefield-Proxy-Secret-Africa/dp/1608464636) our provision of billion of dollars in military aid to Saudi Arabia as it slaughters People in Yemen, our support for dictatorial regimes in Central Asia, and recent help in solidifying 2 coups against democratically elected governments in Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine more recently) and given that mainstream intellectual culture in our society either supports them or sees them as unworthy of comment it makes sense to focus on the harm our government is engaged in that we have a chance of mitigating.

But I once again emphasize that if I thought our government could be pressured into doing something good, I would do so but given my understanding of the world much more can be done by attempting to mitigate its crimes.

You might be interested in reading up on some of the parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland, a book I would recommend is here

Armed conflict took place here after a civil rights movement which was actually modelled after the black civil rights movement, so your analogy with the black panthers exists here. There is also what is known as a 'siege mentality' with those in power - Israeli/Unionists and a 'persecuted and victimised' underclass Republican/Palestinian. The parallels are quite striking.

To solve the conflict in NI there needed to be the view that the real conflict on each side was between the moderates and extremists, with each side fighting for legitimacy within their own community. The peace process needed external pressure to delegitimise the extremists and nurture the legitimacy of the moderates - in NI's case you can read up on the history of the SDLP who stood on the same side of the fence, but opposed to the violence of the IRA/Sinn Feinn. At the start of the 'war' the SDLP was seen as ineffective against unchallenged British aggression - but during the peace process it was they who were rewarded with gains, which made the public challenge why the IRA was continuing their war. Books have been written on this subject so I would obviously encourage you to read up on it - but if you need anything, give me a PM as my Masters thesis is on this comparison.

This might help, the whole region is interconnected in one way or another.. Although it is a selfless plug for a book that I helped research.

Link to book

I might still have all the articles I used for this book on an SD Card I will look and see what I come up with.

EDIT: Nope nothing useful. If you add Turkey or Pakistan then I can help you out.

The book draws a straight line from the Benghazi gun running operations to the Syrian Rebels and then to ISIS (apparently). Guess I'm gonna have to preorder this one:

http://www.amazon.com/The-REAL-Benghazi-Story-Hillary/dp/1936488868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410272234&sr=8-1&keywords=the+real+benghazi+story

He died in late 2001. The videos were faked so they could keep using the Bin Laden terrorist meme to further the war agenda.
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/usama-bin-laden-died-in-december-2001-of-marfan-syndrome

http://grizzom.blogspot.com/2014/09/osama-bin-laden-information-post.html

http://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425258320&sr=8-1&keywords=david+ray+griffin+osama+bin+laden

>Excerpts:
>
>This essay is the introduction to Tom Engelhardt’s new book, A Nation Unmade by War, a Dispatch Book published by Haymarket Books.
>
>As I was putting the finishing touches on my new book, the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute published an estimate of the taxpayer dollars that will have gone into America’s war on terror from September 12, 2001, through fiscal year 2018. That figure: a cool $5.6 trillion(including the future costs of caring for our war vets). On average, that’s at least $23,386 per taxpayer.
>
>Keep in mind that such figures, however eye-popping, are only the dollar costs of our wars. They don’t, for instance, include the psychic costs to the Americans mangled in one way or another in those never-ending conflicts. They don’t include the costs to this country’s infrastructure, which has been crumbling while taxpayer dollars flow copiously and in a remarkably – in these years, almost uniquely – bipartisan fashion into what’s still laughably called “national security.” That’s not, of course, what would make most of us more secure, but what would make them – the denizens of the national security state – ever more secure in Washington and elsewhere. We’re talking about the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. nuclear complex, and the rest of that state-within-a-state, including its many intelligence agencies and the warrior corporations that have, by now, been fused into that vast and vastly profitable interlocking structure.

I think he'd really benefit from reading After the Sheikhs more than anything, though of course those are deeper reads that would do pretty well to explain the subject. After the Sheikhs would probably give a basic enough idea of the proposed way that the Gulf States could fall apart, IMO. What do you think?

Yes, that was in Iraq afaik. I'm talking within Syria.

This book has a lot of insights with regards of the inner workings of the IS.

Grandest_Inquisitor: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

It is fascinating.

I think the Sept. 2000 From the Wilderness article and the Sept. 2000 Bypass Magazine article are the best places to start. Especially the From the Wilderness article, as the author, Michael C. Ruppert, claims to have personal knowledge of many facts and most of the players (almost all former spooks or military people).

Both of these articles also cite other sources, like Cheri Seymour's 'The Last Circle' and Ari Ben-Menache's 'Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network'.

Of course there was the Inslaw lawsuit where I imagine one can find good information. And there were press reports about the case, including New York Times articles (the very existence of which makes me suspicious). The publicly filed documents in the case may be easily obtainable but depositions may not be public and/or may be secret.

This is the Congressional report on the Inslaw case. James Norman's article in Bypass Magazine also references FBI documents that were "heavily redacted" but I don't know where those can be found. Mike Ruppert's article in From the Wilderness mentions numerous documents that he personally viewed but who knows who has those now or if they are publicly available.

The huge breadth of coverage of these sources is daunting. It will take a lot of work to nail them down and check the facts.

Maybe the reason you spread lies about the CIA is because you believe them when you read them. You therefore have no right to consider yourself an intelligent person or even well informed. You’re a consumer of psywar bullshit and it fertilizes the stupidity within.

Check out the book I’ve recommended perchance. Baby steps.


Reading what is essentially an absolute cover up by Republicans in the government is a complete fucking waste of my time. The 2 paragraphs below about the report are typical and are riddled with lies. As is the entire “report."


WASHINGTON — “A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.”

• THIS IS A PROVEN LIE AND MANY
  
  "Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”
  
  
  
• THIS IS A PROVEN LIE AND MANY
  
  
  
  -------------------------------
  
  The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know
  
  by Aaron Klein
  
  https://www.amazon.com/REAL-Benghazi-Story-White-Hillary/dp/1936488868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488000044&sr=8-1&keywords=the+real+benghazi+story

He actually has a book called "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa," which is more in line with the covert ops you were originally interested in, though obviously is a part of neo-imperialism as well.

no, what i am saying is CIA or MI5 has already known the planned murder and guided the turks from the beginning. turks only dıd the legwork. that is my guess. head of CIA is coming to Turkey today FYI. smuggling arms to some neighboring country is not a sign of being advanced. even in that case USA and Turkey was allies and they probably did the smuggling together. dont forget who erdogan is thankful for his presidency and for the current state of Turkey. Read graham fullers "new turkish republic"
https://www.amazon.com/New-Turkish-Republic-Turkey-Pivotal/dp/1601270194

There's entire books written on the topic of Russia's military intervention in Syria and the middle east and what they hope to accomplish with it:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Russia-Up-Middle-East/dp/150952231X

Blood Year - David Kilcullen

Heard some rumours about a planned coup or "Palace Coup" in Qatar. Obviously just rumour and speculation at present, but interesting.

Dr Christopher Davidson, is a British expert on the Gulf. He has written several books on the Gulf countries like Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success, Abu Dhabi: Oil and Beyond and After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monachies

So he knows the region well. He took to Twitter this morning and had this to say.

> Further to this described bout of orchestrated 'Qatar-bashing', I expect Saudi-UAE promised on sidelines of Trump summit that all US....facilities in Qatar would be guaranteed as regime change is carried out (palace coup, or whatever). From the US perspective, this... I think, will help solve current US dilemma on Doha, given Dept Treasury's accumulating evidence on Qatar-linked extremist financing.
>
> In this sense, a new (UAE-managed) guard in Doha is a strategy for White House & DOD to head off growing Congress criticism on Qatar. In this context, there is no doubt this is a well organzied, pre-planned, multi-dimension 'readiness' PR campaign, to prepare ground.

That's probably why he said it in the bag, it's only going to be El Infierno. If you are warned, you will receive a report in the form of the Gulf Monachies](https://www.amazon.com/After-Sheikhs-Coming-Collapse-Monarchies/dp/019024450X).

Nich Turse's "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" might then be interesting! (he wrote the vice piece above)
https://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Battlefield-Proxy-Secret-Africa/dp/1608464636

https://www.amazon.com/REAL-Benghazi-Story-White-Hillary/dp/1531817130

>and the literature does not support this.


"The literature"? Like you even have ever actually read a single book on the subject?


You didn't read the fucking book did you? Had you done so you'd see that in fact back then there were so many Englishmen serving as corsairs that it was practically a joke among them. The most famous of the Barbary Pirates were an Englishment and an Dutchman too. In fact back then many of the Europeans from Catholic countries would serve as corsairs, then return back home rich with plunder and write (or pay to have written) books about how they were kidnapped and forced to serve the evil Muslims and how now that they're back, they're all very Christian. There is a whole genre of such actual literature out there.

more https://www.amazon.com/English-Corsairs-Barbary-Coast-Christopher/dp/000216289X