Reddit mentions: The best iraq history books

Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.

I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.

If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).

Surveys, Background, and Introduction

• Najam Haider's Shi'i Islam: An Introduction. This is a unique take on introducing Shi'ism that starts with what makes Shi'ism theologically distinct; the book also devotes roughly equal attention to the Zaidi, Isma'ili, and Twelver branches of the faith.
  
• Hossein Modaressi's An Introduction to Shi'i Law: A Bibliographical Study. Chapter 4 provides a very concise, yet fairly thorough overview of the history of the development of Shi'i legal theory; Chapters 1-3 can be read as "optional" background, while the rest is a bibliographical overview that is unlikely to be of interest to a non-specialist.
  
• Andrew J. Newman's Twelver Shiism: Unity and Diversity in the Life of Islam, 632 to 1722. A solid history of Twelver Shi'ism from its beginnings to the end of the Safavid period.
  
• Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran. While ostensibility an intellectual history of Iran spanning centuries, this is a great introductory look at various aspects of Shi'ism, particularly as it concerns learning in the seminaries.
  
  The Succession and the so-called "Rashidun" Era
  
  
• Wilfred Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Calpihate
  
• S.M.H. Jafri's The Origins and Early Development of Shi'i Islam
  
  The Imams and Early Shi'is in the Ummayid and `Abbasid Eras
  
  
• Arzina Lalani's Early Shi'i Thought: The Contribution of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir
  
• Najam Haider's The Origins of the Shi'a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kufa
  
• Maria Massi Dakake's The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam
  
• Hossein Modarressi's Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi'ite Islam: Abu Ja'far Ibn Qiba Al-Razi and His Contribution to Imamite Shi'ite Thought. Considered the standard book on the "rationalist/moderate/shortcoming" view of Imamate.
  
• Mohammad Ali Amir Moezzi's The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam. Considered the standard book on the esoteric / "High Imamology" view of Imamate.
  
• Jasim M. Hussain's The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam (A Historical Background)
  
• Andrew J. Newman's The Formative Period of Twelver Shi'ism: Hadith as Discourse Between Qum and Baghdad
  
• Meir M. Bar-Asher's Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imami Shiism
  
  The Buyid, Seljuq, and Mongol Eras
  
  
• Martin J. McDermott's The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022)
  
• Devin J. Stewart's Islamic Legal Orthodoxy. Some people have reservations about this book, so you might want to look at some reviews. It covers the Shi'i school of Shaykh Tusi engaging in juristic legal borrowing from the Shafi'i Sunni school, if I'm not mistaken.
  
• Etan Kohlberg's A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Tawus and His Library. This is perhaps a little different from most other books on this list in scope, style, and focus.
  
  The Safavid Era and the Scholars of Jabal Amil
  
  
• Rula Abisaab's Converting Persia: Religion and Power in the Safavid Empire
  
• Robert Gleave's Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbari Shi'i School
  
  The Iranian Interregnum Era
  
  
• Zachary M. Heern's The Emergence of Modern Shi'ism: Islamic Reform in Iraq and Iran
  
• Robert Gleave's Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shi'i Jurisprudence. This is definitely worth a look if you're interested in details concerning Shi'i legal theory proper.
  
  The Qajar Era
  
  
• Hamid Algar's Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period. This book is about fifty years old now, but I think it's still the standard reference for this topic.
  
• Meir Litvak's Shi'i Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The 'Ulama' of Najaf and Karbala'
  
  The Contemporary Era / Miscellaneous
  
  
• Liyakat Nathani Takim's Shi'ism in America. I said I'd stay away from the more geographically focused books, but I think this one in particular might appeal to a lot of people; mainly those living in the West in general, and North America in particular.
  
  
• Linda S. Walbridge's The Thread of Mu'awiya: The Making of a Marja' Taqlid. A book with a strange title about the foremost Shi'i scholars in the contemporary age; while published posthumously in the 2010s, the book is based on research conducted in the 1990s. I think it contains a lot of valuable information and an interesting perspective, but I also find some of it to be informed by lazy misconceptions or generalizations, although I'm quite sure the author would have substantially reworked this project had she lived longer.
  
• Ata Anzali's Mysticism in Iran: The Safavid Roots of a Modern Concept. This should provide information on irfan.
  
• Kamran Scot Aghaie's The Martyrs of Karbala: Shi'i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran. This covers the evolution of the Karbala narrative in Modern Iran (in the Qajar, Pahlavi, and post-Revolutionary eras, respectively).
  
• Matthew Pierce's Twelve Infallible Men: The Imams and the Making of Shi'ism. This book examines how the genre of the biographies of the Imams was formed (this may be a better fit in one of the above categories, but I'm less familiar with this book, so I'm not sure which era(s) is/are the focus).

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.

> I'm talking about ISIS not all of Islam ya butthole

My bad man :) So you would agree that the non-radical Muslims are compatible with our Western culture? We are on the same page then.

I agree that ISIS and others are total POS.

> And none of what you said changes my statements.

Well I was responding as if you were talking about Islam in general so...

> Not only that, but we are taking in thousands upon thousands who will soon be able to vote in our elections and have a say in who runs the country

I mean... that's not about ISIS specifically...but I'll let it slide (you are welcome) as I think we can agree that religion should not inform policy in any government even though Christians and Muslims alike will vote based on their beliefs. Through constitutional rights, we can mitigate this.

> despite you attacking Christianity.

I just compared it to what you said about Islam is all...

> It really doesn't bother me.

Oh darn.. ;) Kidding, I'm not trying to make you feel some type of way. Just talking.

I think the role of western powers in foreign lands should not be overlooked. I think Iraq is one of the best examples. There is a pretty good (although at times it skims) overview of the History of Iraq by Charles Tripp (https://www.amazon.com/History-Iraq-Charles-Tripp/dp/052170247X). If you are interested.

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.

For more extensive reading on the subject:

Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)

Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects

Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history

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.

The context is modern Middle Eastern history.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, as well as the Balfour Declaration are the key points in modern Arab history, that unfortunately most Arabs know nothing about.

It is also important to remember that this man who began the Arab Revolt due to promises made by the English, intended for one Arab state only.

The Arab revolt remains to this day the only war of independence fought by Arabs, unless you choose to count Kuwait's hiring of the US to fight Iraq a popular independence movement. The armies that fought during the Arab revolt were made up of Arabs from various tribes of Arabia, as well as from Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc. It even contained some Muslim volunteers from India. The Arab revolt saw the emergence of some great Arab heroes of the past century, such as Dhuqan al-Atrash, his son Sultan al-Atrash, Prince Rashed al-Khuzai, Ezz el-din al-Qassam, Fawzi al-Qawuqji, and many many others.

The context is the creation by colonial powers of national states where non existed before.

The context is key to our history as Arabs in a time where we care more about the next iphone than how our countries came to be made.

If you care enough to verify the statements I've made, feel free to read A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, or Inventing Iraq, another great book.

We did not create our countries, they were created for us and the statements and documents made by Balfour and others exist till this day, bragging about how he "drew lines on an empty map" based on accents and oil fields.

For anyone else wondering what became of the investigation President Reagan called for, I was curious too: Did the CO get removed/demoted/suspended/reprimanded? That's usually a good litmus test of failure in the military- from a civilian's perspective anyway - at least when politics and international intrigue is not involved.

The incident was 7/3/1988.

According to the CO's wiki page (which may or may not be factually accurate, properly vetted or complete)

>Rogers remained in command of the USS Vincennes until May 27, 1989.[13] In 1990, President George H. W. Bush awarded Capt. Rogers the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[14]

At the end of the day, it appears the CO was never removed or demoted, was allowed to complete his tour, passed GO , collected $200, got a medal, retired, got his pension and even wrote a book about it. Yes he did

Some interesting notes on the 'reviews' over there. Approx half being either 1 or 2 star.

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...

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

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.

Thanks, that looks like a great book. Even if the majority of its focus is on 2003-2009, it sounds like it is written in a forward thinking way.

Thanks to you, I also found this one in the related titles section, which was written one month before the fall of Mosul, and by an Iraqi!

http://smile.amazon.com/Struggle-Iraqs-Future-Incompetence-Sectarianism-ebook/dp/B00HWWRKSY

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.

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)

Predecessors of what became Jabhat an-Nusra were active in Iraq of the 2000s. Some of them returned to Syria already in summer 2011, originally with intention of establishing something like the local branch of the AQI (later ISIL/ISIS, then IS etc.).

Ahrar came into being as an umbrella organization of numerous small Islamist, Salafist, and even a few Wahhabist groups. While most of these were established in 2012, their name stems from a group that became active in summer 2011.

Recommended reading in this regards is Lister's The Syrian Jihad: he's really going to great extension into explaining the coming into being of all such groups.

Suppose I better qualify that.

To quote Phebe Marr, a former research professor of the National Defense University, fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations and one of the leading western historians on modern Iraq;

>Gwertzman: How did the Shiites and the Sunnis get along? The popular image is that they are quite hostile.

>Marr: I don’t know where that perception comes from, and it ought to be dispelled immediately. Iraq is not the Balkans. There really isn’t traditional enmity or hostility between Sunni and Shiite communities in Iraq. They have coexisted for time immemorial in Iraq.

And Marr (2006);

>The sectarian violence, particularly in mixed cities in places like Baghdad, for example, is very serious now. Now, having just come back from Iraq, I'm still going to say that this is relatively new in Iraqi politics. There was a certain amount of difference between Sunni and Shiite communities always, but it never was the predominant feature of political life, and certainly not personal life. There is a lot of intermarriage between Shiites and Sunnis.

For anybody who is interested in Iraq's actually history, not what is being re-written in the media, I can highly recommend The Modern History of Iraq.

Get you eyes checked buddy, no where did I say "the last 70 years was all bad". Learn how to use quotes.

Also we most certainly help put Suddam Hussein in power.
Here's a book about it.

There's hundreds of well documented examples of the United States role in the regime change. I think I've explained myself well enough. Your insults and callow remarks are a good summary of your position.

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.

> Except I do accept that Bush had other motives to go into Iraq, and so led Blair on where perhaps Blair should have been more cautious.

Brian Jones' book was quite illuminating on the pressure put on the UK intelligence community to give the answers the politicians wanted to hear. He's especially convincing because he was in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and gave some insight into Blair's real motives.

If you think it's about money and corporations, you are wrong. It's about keeping countries with a largesse debt to their populations stable, and it starts with Saudi Arabia. Until the last 10-15 years or so, nation states were far more cohesive. In arming Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, yes even Iraq et al, no power vacuum would erupt a destabilization of the oil supply or the canal. You remember that canal right? Pretty important. Egypt's military isn't a fantastic fighting force. They can't even hold the Sinai. In their own backyard. It's a conscript army with discipline and motivation problems that put it on par with some 3rd world nations. (I once saw a guard outside our hotel sitting on a folding chair with his loaded rifle, butt on the ground, forehead resting on the muzzle. I saw his officer in charge beat the shit out of him not for sitting in a suicide position but for sitting.) They can't afford the hardware, hence the free aid. The military aid relations that the US involves itself with isn't to make a penny for defense industry, it's to keep the oil flowing so the global economy doesn't outright collapse, a collapse that would certainly precipitate a global war. Not because gas would go up, but because the cost of everything that is shipped anywhere would go up or stop flowing. Things like all the food Egypt imports.

Now 20+ years ago, the US wanted Egypt secure after the routing the Israelis gave it. An unsecured Egypt is a power vacuum with a vital strategic asset, the canal. It's an insanely tempting target for Libya, Iraq, or Syria to pour into. Mostly Iraq. The genesis of the defense agreements goes back to the Camp David accords. From that point in History on, US policy has always been to seek an equilibrium of power in the region. With no one country getting uppity or feeling cornered, no one country would unilaterally attack another. With the exception of the always unpredictable Saddam Hussein, it worked. That's the theory anyway. I don't put much faith in statecraft outside of self-preservation.

It wasn't until the last 10-20 years that people started looking at countries differently. The globe is a shrinking place, with an even more interconnected economy and an even higher risk of a catastrophic cascade failure. Only now do people look at Egypt not as a country on a map, but as a collection of different peoples within a shared space and culture.

THAT'S why the US is giving Egypt aid. That's why they are getting Block 52 F-16's and Apaches. You are getting it for free because it's worth the billions (according to current policy) to keep the balance of power in play, even if Egypt can't afford the hardware to make it happen. People think it's about having a handle of power in the Egyptian government, or making a few million for Lockheed, but in the end it's just not that simple. In the end the US doesn't care who is in power in Egypt. That's for the Egyptian people to decide. So long as Egypt remains a nation state and that canal stays open, the region stays secure, and global war does not ensue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Partnership_Initiative#Foreign_policy

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_international_relations&us_international_relations_us_foreign_relations=us_international_relations_us_middle_east_relations

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/minister-egypt-imports-40-its-food

I won't link some stuff, but you can find the bulk of the current assessment of Egypt's military power online if that's what you are looking for.

Suggested Reading - all have good things to take from them, though none is authoritative or without contradiction/error:

American Orientalism

Syria, the United States, and the War on Terror in the Middle East

State of Disrepair: Fixing the Culture and Practices of the State Department

The last book is more of a recreational read and an insight into this end of things. Just as Egypt is more complicated than Islamists and Pyramids, the US is more complicated than government and people, left and right, etc. etc. The government itself is usually contradictory or even stalemated within it's own power structures, and power bases exist in spectra rather than categories.

Far more chaotic than corporations want money -> corporations make policy -> policy makes money. It's far worse than that, because that implies that someone knows what is going on and controls it all. I don't think either is true. It's way worse. Nobody knows what is going on, and nobody is in control. Not for lack of trying, but because now the web is too complex to untangle or manage, so now we play patchwork.

Oh and Russia is in on the game too, I would guess. All I have are books and the news to go on. Russia, China, the US, and the EU are all working to keep things running. There's a lot of political show for the news cameras but the policies and actualities show that the leaders of the world are trying really, really hard right now to keep the peace globally. Egypt features because of the canal. Congrats!

I have faith in the Egyptian people though. Not that Egypt will pull it off, but that Egypt can pull it off.

Edit: punctuation

Edit 2: Holy cow. Thank you! If I had known ahead of time, I would have put a lot more effort into citations and support, and paid closer attention to proofreading.

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.

There are rumors and stories about a secret assassin group known as the "White Shroud".

In the "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror" book there is a story of an old woman in Raqqa who would go to the IS sharia courts every morning and protest for a few hours and IS surprisingly never did anything to her except make fun and laugh at her, and one guy bumped her with his car because she was in his parking spot.

And of course you have Raqqa is being Slaughtered Silently, who is the most public and well known groups. They have had members of their group killed as well as family members. You can watch a 5 part documentary that goes into all of this in detail here

I have a long list of books that I usually recommend to people who are interested in these types of subjects. Here are some that may be of interest to you. If you are ever interested in more books on the Middle East or international affairs issues, check out the r/geopolitics wiki.

As for the books that have been recommended to you, they are pretty good. I even repeated a few of them in my recommendations. The only ones that I would have reservations about are Gen. Daniel Bolger's because I have never read it.

Author | Title | Synopsis
---|---|----
Daniel Byman | Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone Needs to Know | A terrific primer on al-Qaida, ISIL, and jihadism. Its a brief outline of the history of al-Qaida, its ideological underpinnings, and the rise of ISIL in the shadow of the Syrian Civil War.
Lawrence Wright | The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 | Probably the most approachable and argueably the best book for outlining the pro-9/11 history of al-Qaida and why 9/11 happened.
Michael Wiess and Hassan Hassan | ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror | One of several recent books on ISIL, this one provides an overview on the history and organization of ISIL.
Charles Lister | The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency | Written by an expert on jihadism in Syria, this books looks at the history and evolution of jihadists in the Syrian conflict.
Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger | ISIS: The State of Terror | Written by two top experts in the study of terrorism, this book focuses on how ISIL radicalizes and recruits individuals from all over the world to join their cause.
William McCants | The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State | An examination of ISIL's worldview and how it influenced its growth and strategy.
Kenneth Pollack | The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America | An excellent overview of the history of relations and tensions between the United States and Iran over the decades. Pollack published a second book on U.S.-Iranian relations in the wake of Iran's nuclear program called Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy
Bob Woodward | Obama's Wars | Outline of the U.S. foreign policy decision making towards Iraq and Afghanistan in the early years of the Obama administration.
Michael R. Gordon | The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama | Follows U.S. strategic and political decision making process during the Iraq War and the U.S. occupation.
Peter R. Mansoor | Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War | An extensive outline of the development and outcome of the Surge during the U.S. Occupation of Iraq.
Mark Mazzetti | The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth | An overview of the CIA's targeted drone program against terrorist organizations.
Michael Morrell | The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS | Written by the former acting director of the CIA, this book examines U.S. counterterrorism successes and failures of the past two decades.

this one is the best:

https://www.amazon.com/Kurds-Concise-History-Fact-Book-ebook/dp/B00YUY70W8/

if you need for Rojava, this one is freshly published:

https://www.amazon.com/Kurds-Northern-Syria-Governance-Diversity-ebook/dp/B07VT7WYCX/

I would recommend reading Dr. Ali A. Allawi memoir to have some understanding of what pre-invasion Iraq was like.

In terms of academic works, a few more to take a look at would be The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam by Maria Massi Dakake, God's Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam by Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate by Wilferd Madelung, and The Origins of the Shī'a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kūfa by Najam Haider. None of these I would give my 100% approval too, but they are interesting historical takes on the topic in a more critical fashion than you'll often find.

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

I tend to see the split around the turn of the century as several events that coalesced into a major societal shift (toward better or worse is up for debate:)

• Columbine Massacre (which I guess was technically Millenials, but it represented a big change in the way that society viewed young people so the blowback had strong repercussions across the environment that young people were allowed to experience.)
  
  
• Bush vs Gore Supreme Court case. I think that this one was pretty important because it was the most visible point in a long time that the system was not well understood or ... working. Prior to this, many of us just sort of assumed that all voting was the same everywhere, and that standards were in place. Maybe this was just me being young.
  
  
• 9/11 : I was attending a SUNY college (not in NYC) at the time. It seemed like EVERYONE knew at least one or two people who were in or near the towers. They kind of closed the school as an afterthought. What burned into my memory was in the hours after the chaos (maybe around 1800 that day?) where Dan Rather announced with some gravitas that there were now fighter jets patrolling the skies over NY. And then we had armed soldiers in the train stations. I'd argue that was the first real use of the "New Media" -- cnn.com barely handling the load (they stripped down the entire site to keep it online) and the whole "replay the same thing over and over" routine started there.
  
  
• Beginning the third Gulf War (2003) - For me, this was different because many, many pieces worked together that ordinarily would not. The media seemed amazingly pro-war. (As somoene who grew up in the aftermath of Vietnam, this was offputting) - I recently read America's War for the Greater Middle East and it put a lot of context around the sustained PR campaign that made selling the 2003 invasion possible. I tend to also view this as the point where the political rhetoric began scaling up.

"America's War for the Greater Middle East" is an excellent read/listen. Good historical overview and critique of our strategy, or the lack thereof, in CENTCOM.

(Aside from the Saudi regime) do "muslims" have their hands on a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, trillions in wealth, their hands deep into every crevice of the US government and bureaucracy, and maintain (at least) two foreign military occupations?

Answer, no.

There are very specific and identifiable persons and groups who pose a direct threat to global peace, the viability of the US as a state under the rule of law and general human freedom - the list is long and well known (take practically any member of the last regime all the way down to the junior political appointee in the Green Zone) and continues to this day from Newt, to Palin, to Kochs, etc. ad nauseum.

If you refuse to believe these fanatics, and the sources I have pointed to above are not specific enough for you, then perhaps when Bradley Manning is released from his dungeon he can help correct your thinking.

Sometimes problems are real, specific and identifiable - choosing to ignore them does not make them go away.

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

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X/
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Inside/dp/1400044871/

You're referring to this right? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kurds-Concise-History-Fact-Book-ebook/dp/B00YUY70W8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493578616&sr=8-1&keywords=the+kurds+a+concise+handbook

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

Iraq's Relationship with the Soviets wasn't perfect and there were plenty of differences and waxing and waning of ties but there were times when Iraq was one of Moscow's closest allies in the Middle East and Russia continued to be largest single arms supplier to Baghdad.

Marion Farouk-Sluglett & Peter Sluglett Iraq Since 1958
http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Since-1958-Revolution-Dictatorship/dp/1860646220/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450603050&sr=8-1&keywords=iraq+since+1958

Phebe Marr The Modern History of Iraq
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-History-Iraq-Phebe-Marr/dp/0813344433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450603232&sr=8-1&keywords=phebe+marr+modern+history+of+iraq

Charles Tripp A History of Iraq
http://www.amazon.com/History-Iraq-Charles-Tripp/dp/052170247X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450603380&sr=8-1&keywords=charles+tripp+a+history+of+iraq

>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

America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History

>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.