Shadow Wars: The Secret Struggle for the Middle East

By Christopher Davidson

For more than a century successive US and UK governments have sought to thwart nationalist, socialist and pro-democracy movements in the Middle East. Through the Cold War, the War on Terror’ and the present era defined by the Islamic State, the Western powers have repeatedly manipulated the region’s most powerful actors to ensure the security of their own interests and, in doing so, have given rise to religious politics, sectarian war, bloody counter-revolutions and now one of the most brutal incarnations of Islamic extremism ever seen.

This is the utterly compelling, systematic dissection of Western interference in the Middle East. Christopher Davidson exposes the dark side of our foreign policy dragging many disturbing facts out into the light for the first time. Most shocking for us today is his assertion that US intelligence agencies continue to regard the Islamic State, like al-Qaeda before it, as a strategic but volatile asset to be wielded against their enemies. Provocative, alarming and unrelenting, Shadow Wars demands to be read now.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oneworld Publications
• Release date: Oct 6, 2016
• ISBN: 9781786070029

Reviews for Shadow Wars

[happysadnick · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Few can follow and understand the wars in the Middle East. Who are the villains? Who are the players? Why is there bloodshed? Is it all about oil? Why is a multi-trillion military adventure in the middle of nowhere unable to defeat primitive warriors with no intelligence apparatus. Why are Saudi Arabia and Qatar not the villains? It has been revealed that they are funding Isis. Do we want peace in the Middle East? Why did our government lie to us to get into conflict with Iraq? Topics of interest include blowback, not only int he Middle East, but also in Africa. What were our leaders thinking of?

[dverg48 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A book that provides details of the changing factions in the Middle East, and factors in the rise of ISIS that are not found in the reporting of the news media. Informative because it provides coverage of the difficulties in all the present countries in the Middle East, Northern Africa, etc. However, I found it difficult to filter out the bias the author seems to have against Western governments.

[elliot1822 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

For many decades US and UK governments have tried with various methods to defeat popularist, socialist and pro-democracy movements in the Middle East. Throughout the Cold War, the United States ‘War on Terror' and the terror visited on us by the Islamic State, the Western powers have repeatedly used and manipulated the region's most powerful figures to ensure the security of their own financial and nationalist interests and have given rise to brutal religious based politics, bloody sectarian wars, and now one of the most brutal visions of Islamic extremism ever seen. Christopher Davidson exposes for us the dark side of our foreign policy which is Western interference in the Middle East. What could be the most shocking for many of us to read in this book today is his statement that US intelligence agencies continue to look at the Islamic State, as a strategic but volatile asset to be wielded against their enemies. Shadow Wars must be read as I feel is clearly shows the defeat of the ‘Arab Spring' as a type of counter revolution pushed by external interventions from the West. The book begins with past type of European Revolutions and ends up with a very convincing analysis of the demise of the Arab Spring. No one is spared in this clear and direct analysis: Arab regimes, popularist movements, the West and Israel are all vicerated here for their responsibility for the suffering of the people of Middle East today.

[wchagen · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This review is based on an early reader’s copy. Specific comments have been checked against the final copy.This is a classic case of letting trees obscure a view of the forest. If Davidson has a mental vision of the Middle East problem and recommendation regarding a solution, he has obscured his position by presenting a cacophony of past ills and missteps. He avoids explicitly stating that his thesis is to show that the situation in the Middle East is the product of the imperialistic policies of the US and England but he makes that position very clear. But, it is missing the mark to criticize his position with a left versus right argument; that is much too simplistic and fundamentally wrong—the situation in the Middle East is far too complex to place the parties and motivations on a linear scale. Davidson swings wildly but, besides the US and England, special invectives are hurled at ‘neo-liberals’ wherever they are. He seems intent on dragging us into an arcane squabble between liberals and neo-liberals. In his view, the neo-liberal tag covers most of the west and middle-east established governments. If you stuff enough half-truths into a gunny sack, everything smells like burlap.Regardless of the author’s scholastic credentials, I found the book to be academically shallow. In the advanced reader’s copy I reviewed, there were 2540 footnotes. Of those, less than 10% referenced primary sources which included citations to ‘leaked’ documents of unknown provenance. The vast majority of citations are to newspapers, telecasts, and to other writers’ works. The book is replete with clauses such as “According to . . . “ and “As - - - points out”. Davidson seems unwilling or unable to own his own arguments. If he presented his case in a court of law, most of his data would not be admitted. Not that his data sources are false but only that the context cannot be assessed. He refers to his ‘interviewees’ several times but does not identify them. Strangely the index (not included in the advanced readers copy) does not include references to footnotes or citations.Many of Davidson’s arguments are not logical. To allege that the US’s reluctance to commit overwhelming forces against ISIS is evidence we support them is not a logical argument. In no way can it be alleged that the author is pro-ISIS, but he introduces doubt that the videos of atrocities committed by ISIS are authentic. It takes a great stretch to imagine that either the US or ISIS would be motivated to fake the material. He makes the same logical misstep when he argues that failure to provide decisive support to the groups initially instigating the ‘Arab Spring’ is evidence we supported either the authoritarian governments then in place or to the Moslem Brotherhood who hijacked the effort. Some conclusions drawn are patently incorrect. Although not directly germane to the main subject of the book, on page 44, he makes the claim that the US intervened in Vietnam to exploit that country’s resources including coal. Much more effort has been expended ensuring the importation of bananas than coal. One hundred years ago, a claim could have been made that rubber was an exploitable resource but such spurious claims suggests bias. The outdated resource exploitation argument is repeated throughout the book. Colonialism as motivation for US or England is a stale argument. America is rich in resources and the exploitation of other countries has never dominated its foreign policies. Oil is not an exception. While the US has been motivated by a perceived need to preserve a supply, it has paid the price largely dictated by OPEC.Using Davidson’s own data, it can be concluded that the Western involvement in Near Eastern affairs has been reactive rather than proactive as he claims. His bias has led to his conclusion that the tail is wagging the dog. He stops only inches away from subscribing to the insane conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attack was a home grown incident to justify our intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. Returning to the weakness of his case against the US, the author’s presentation of his case is based on circumstantial evidence—he can point to no smoking gun. Even if all his data is unbiased and accurate, alternative explanations are plausible. For example, the playing out of an Islamic Fundamentalists apocalyptic vision including the drawing in of forces from the “Great Satan” would account for much of Jihadist psychotic behavior. Much of Davidson’s data would support that alternative scenario whether or not it is more plausible.I do not know whose bell he is ringing but his clapper is made mainly of mush—his reasoning is flawed and conclusions are absurd.