Tomdispatch.com: How America Made ISIS

From: Berhane Habtemariam <Berhane.Habtemariam_at_gmx.de_at_dehai.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:10:51 +0200

How America Made ISIS
Their Videos and Ours, Their “Caliphate” and Ours
By <http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/tom> Tom Engelhardt

September6, 2014

Whatever your politics, you’re not likely to feel great about America right
now. After all, there’s Ferguson (the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/18/how-the-rest-o
f-the-world-sees-ferguson/> whole world was watching!), an
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx>
increasingly unpopular president, a Congress whose
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/171710/public-faith-congress-falls-again-hits-hi
storic-low.aspx> approval ratings make the president look like a rock star,
rising poverty, weakening wages, and a growing inequality gap just to start
what could be a long list. Abroad, from
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/africa/libyan-unrest.html> Libya
and Ukraine to Iraq and the
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-22/chinese-jet-barrel-rolls-over-u-s-
plane-bringing-protest.html> South China Sea, nothing has been coming up
roses for the U.S. Polls reflect a general American
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/opinion/frank-bruni-lost-in-america.html>
gloom, with
<http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wsj-nbc-news-poll-widespread-
economic.html> 71% of the public claiming the country is “on the wrong
track.” We have the look of a superpower down on our luck.

What Americans have needed is a little pick-me-up to make us feel better, to
make us, in fact, feel distinctly <http://fpif.org/plague/> good.
Certainly, what official Washington has needed in tough times is a bona fide
enemy so darn evil, so brutal, so barbaric, so inhuman that, by contrast, we
might know just how exceptional, how truly necessary to this planet we
really are.

In the nick of time, riding to the rescue comes something new under the sun:
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), recently renamed Islamic State
(IS). It’s a group so extreme that even al-Qaeda
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26016318> rejected it, so brutal
that it’s brought back
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10933851/Isis-cr
ucifies-nine-people-in-Syrian-villages.html> crucifixion,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/syria-conflict.html>
beheading,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/captives-held-by-isla
mic-state-were-waterboarded/2014/08/28/2b4e1962-2ec9-11e4-9b98-848790384093_
story.html> waterboarding, and amputation, so fanatical that it’s ready to
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/who-yazidi-isis-iraq-religion-
ethnicity-mountains> persecute any religious group within range of its
weapons, so grimly beyond morality that it’s made the beheading of an
innocent American a global propaganda phenomenon. If you’ve got a label
that’s really, really bad like
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/isis-persecution-iraqi-christi
ans-genocide-asylum> genocide or
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/25/isis-ethnic-cleansing-shia-pri
soners-iraq-mosul> ethnic cleansing, you can probably apply it to ISIS's
actions.

It has also proven so effective that its relatively modest band of warrior
jihadis has routed the Syrian and Iraqi armies, as well as the Kurdish pesh
merga militia, taking control of a territory larger than Great Britain in
the heart of the Middle East. Today, it rules over at least
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/isis-gains-syria-pressure-west
-robust> four million people, controls its own functioning oil fields and
refineries (and so their
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-25/islamic-state-now-resembles-the-ta
liban-with-oil-fields.html> revenues as well as infusions of money from
looted banks, kidnapping ransoms, and Gulf state patrons). Despite
opposition, it still seems to be
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/middleeast/isis-militants-capture-a
ir-base-from-syrian-government-forces.html> expanding and claims it has
established a caliphate.

A Force So Evil You’ve Got to Do Something

Facing such pure evil, you may feel a chill of fear, even if you’re a top
military or national security official, but in a way you’ve gotta feel good,
too. It’s not everyday that you have an enemy your president can
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/20/statement-president>
term a “cancer”; that your secretary of state can
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/john-kerry-isis-must-be-destroyed-20
140820> call the “face” of “ugly, savage, inexplicable, nihilistic, and
valueless evil” which “must be destroyed”; that your secretary of defense
can <http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5491>
denounce as “barbaric” and lacking a “standard of decency, of responsible
human behavior... an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's
in Iraq or anywhere else”; that your chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
can describe as “an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days
strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated”; and that a
retired general and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan can brand
a “
<http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/08/gen-allen-destroy-islamic-state-now
/92012/> scourge... beyond the pale of humanity [that]... must be
eradicated.”

Talk about a feel-good feel-bad situation for the leadership of a superpower
that’s seen better days! Such threatening evil calls for only one thing, of
course: for the United States to step in. It calls for the Obama
administration to dispatch the
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175883/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_bom
ber_will_always_get_funded_--_and_used/> bombers and drones in a slowly
expanding air war in Iraq and, sooner or later, possibly Syria. It falls on
Washington’s shoulders to
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/middleeast/us-mobilizes-allies-to-w
iden-assault-on-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&modu
le=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news> organize a new
“coalition of the willing” from among various backers and opponents of the
Assad regime in Syria, from among those who have
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/patrick-cockburn/isis-consolidates> armed and
funded the extremist rebels in that country, from the ethnic/religious
factions in the former Iraq, and from various NATO countries. It calls for
Washington to transform Iraq’s leadership (a process no longer termed
“regime change”) and elevate a
<http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-biden-iraq-20140811-story.htm
l> new man capable of reuniting the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, now
at each other’s throats, into one nation capable of turning back the
extremist tide. If not American “boots on the ground,” it calls for proxy
ones of various sorts that the U.S. military will naturally have a hand in
training, arming, funding, and advising. Facing such evil, what other
options could there be?

If all of this sounds strangely familiar, it should. Minus a couple of
invasions, the steps being considered or already in effect to deal with “the
threat of ISIS” are a reasonable summary of the last 13 years of what was
once called the Global War on Terror and now has no name at all. New as
ISIS may be, a little history is in order, since that group is, at least in
part, America’s legacy in the Middle East.

Give Osama bin Laden some credit. After all, he helped set us on the path
to ISIS. He and his ragged band had no way of creating the caliphate they
dreamed of or much of anything else. But he did
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175388/tom_engelhardt_osama_bin_laden%27
s_american_legacy> grasp that goading Washington into something that looked
like a crusader’s war with the Muslim world might be an effective way of
heading in that direction.

In other words, before Washington brings its military power fully to bear on
the new "caliphate," a modest review of the post-9/11 years might be
appropriate. Let’s start at the moment when those towers in New York had
just come down, thanks to a small group of mostly Saudi hijackers, and
almost 3,000 people were dead in the rubble. At that time, it wasn’t hard
to convince Americans that there could be nothing worse, in terms of pure
evil, than Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Establishing an American Caliphate

Facing such unmatchable evil, the United States officially went to war as it
might have against an enemy military power. Under the rubric of the Global
War on Terror, the Bush administration launched the unmatchable power of the
U.S. military and its paramilitarized intelligence agencies against... well,
what? Despite those dramatic videos of al-Qaeda training camps in
Afghanistan, that organization had no military force worth the name, and
despite what you’ve seen on “Homeland,” no sleeper cells in the U.S. either;
nor did it have the ability to mount follow-up operations any time soon.

In other words, while the Bush administration talked about “
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357781/US-asks-
Nato-for-help-in-draining-the-swamp-of-global-terrorism.html> draining the
swamp” of terror groups in up to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547561.stm> 60 countries, the U.S.
military was dispatched against what were essentially will-o’-the-wisps,
largely representing Washington’s own conjured fears and fantasies. It was,
that is, initially sent against bands of largely inconsequential Islamic
extremists, scattered in tiny numbers in the tribal backlands of Afghanistan
or Pakistan and, of course, the rudimentary armies of the Taliban.

It was, to use a word that George W. Bush let slip
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1781/james_carroll_the_bush_crusade> only
once, something like a "crusade," something close to a religious war, if not
against Islam itself -- American officials piously and repeatedly made that
clear -- then against the idea of a Muslim enemy, as well as against
al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and later
Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. In each case, Washington mustered a coalition of
the willing, ranging from Arab and South or Central Asian states to European
ones, sent in air power followed twice by full-scale invasions and
occupations, mustered local politicians of our choice in major
“nation-building” operations amid much self-promotional talk about
democracy, and built up vast new military and security apparatuses,
supplying them with
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/american-intelligence-of
ficials-said-iraqi-military-had-been-in-decline.html> billions of dollars in
training and arms.

Looking back, it’s hard not to think of all of this as a kind of American
jihadism, as well as an attempt to establish what might have been considered
an American caliphate in the region (though Washington had far kinder
descriptive terms for it). In the process, the U.S. effectively dismantled
and destroyed state power in each of the three main countries in which it
intervened, while ensuring the destabilization of neighboring countries and
finally the region itself.

 <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608461548/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> In that
largely Muslim part of the world, the U.S. left a grim record that we in
this country generally tend to discount or forget when we decry the
barbarism of others. We are now focused in horror on ISIS’s video of the
murder of journalist James Foley, a propaganda document clearly designed to
drive Washington over the edge and into more active opposition to that
group.

We, however, ignore the virtual library of videos and other imagery the U.S.
generated, images widely viewed (or heard about and discussed) with no less
horror in the Muslim world than ISIS’s imagery is in ours. As a start,
there were the infamous “
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175836/tomgram%3A_karen_greenberg,_abu_ghra
ib_never_left_us/> screen saver” images straight out of the Marquis de Sade
from <http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560> Abu Ghraib prison.
There, Americans tortured and abused Iraqi prisoners, while creating their
own <http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Abu_Ghraib_abuse.jpg> iconic
version of crucifixion imagery. Then there were the videos that no one
(other than insiders) saw, but that everyone heard about. These, the CIA
took of the repeated torture and abuse of al-Qaeda suspects in its “black
sites.” In 2005, they were
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/jose-rodriguez-and-the-ninety-tw
o-tapes> destroyed by an official of that agency, lest they be screened in
an American court someday. There was also the Apache helicopter
<http://collateralmurder.com/> video released by WikiLeaks in which American
pilots gunned down Iraqi civilians on the streets of Baghdad (including two
Reuters correspondents), while on the sound track the crew are heard
wisecracking. There was the
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/24/us-marines-charged-dead-taliba
n> video of U.S. troops urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters in
Afghanistan. There were the
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-afghan-photos-20120418-story.html#page=
1> trophy photos of body parts
<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/afghans-revolted-by-us-tr
oops-posing-with-dead-suicide-bombers.html> brought home by U.S. soldiers.
There were the <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXgGCH36fzM> snuff films of
the victims of Washington’s drone assassination campaigns in the tribal
backlands of the planet (or “
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/world/asia/pakistan-drones-not-a-bug-splat/>
bug splat,” as the drone pilots came to call the dead from those attacks)
and <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYV3JirmyA> similar footage from
helicopter gunships. There was the bin Laden snuff film video from the raid
on Abbottabad, Pakistan, of which President Obama
<http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/05/02/bin.laden.video/> reportedly watched
a live feed. And that’s
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/stop-hiding-images-of-amer
ican-torture.html> only to begin to account for some of the imagery produced
by the U.S. since September 2001 from its various adventures in the Greater
Middle East.

All in all, the invasions, the occupations, the drone campaigns in several
lands, the deaths that ran into the hundreds of thousands, the
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174892/michael_schwartz_the_iraqi_brain_dra
in> uprooting of millions of people sent into external or internal exile,
the expending of
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/opinion/iraq-opinion-united-states-cost-of-wa
r/index.html> trillions of dollars added up to a bin Laden dreamscape. They
would prove jihadist recruitment tools par excellence.

When the U.S. was done, when it had set off the process that led to
insurgencies, civil wars, the growth of extremist militias, and the collapse
of state structures, it had also guaranteed the rise of something new on
Planet Earth: ISIS -- as well as of other extremist outfits ranging from the
Pakistani Taliban, now challenging the state in certain areas of that
country, to Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
in Yemen.

Though the militants of ISIS would undoubtedly be horrified to think so,
they are the spawn of Washington. Thirteen years of regional war,
occupation, and intervention played a major role in clearing the ground for
them. They may be our worst nightmare (thus far), but they are also our
legacy -- and not just because so many of their leaders
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-fa
ctor-in-isis-successes.html> came from the Iraqi army we disbanded, had
their beliefs and skills honed in the prisons we set up (
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/was-camp-bucca-pressure-cooker-
extremism> Camp Bucca seems to have been the West Point of Iraqi extremism),
and gained experience facing U.S. counterterror operations in the “surge”
years of the occupation. In fact, just about everything done in the war on
terror has facilitated their rise. After all, we dismantled the Iraqi army
and rebuilt one that would flee at the first signs of ISIS’s fighters,
<http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraqi-army-left-weapons-hands-terrorist
s-today/story?id=24070848> abandoning vast stores of Washington's weaponry
to them. We essentially destroyed the Iraqi state, while fostering a Shia
leader who would
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175869/tomgram%3A_dahr_jamail,_incinerating
_iraq/> oppress enough Sunnis in enough ways to create a situation in which
ISIS would be welcomed or tolerated throughout significant areas of the
country.

The Escalation Follies

When you think about it, from the moment the first bombs began falling on
Afghanistan in October 2001 to the present, not a single U.S. military
intervention has had anything like its intended effect. Each one has, in
time, proven a disaster in its own special way, providing breeding grounds
for extremism and producing yet another set of recruitment posters for yet
another set of jihadist movements. Looked at in a clear-eyed way, this is
what any American military intervention seems to offer such extremist
outfits -- and ISIS knows it.

Don’t consider its <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc1_1408481278> taunting
video of James Foley's execution the irrational act of madmen blindly
calling down the destructive force of the planet’s last superpower on
themselves. Quite the opposite. Behind it lay rational calculation.
ISIS’s leaders surely understood that American air power would hurt them,
but they knew as well that, as in an
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175388/engelhardt_Osama_dead_and_alive>
Asian martial art in which the force of an assailant is used against him,
Washington’s full-scale involvement would also infuse their movement
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/20/james-foley-murder-wes
tern-action-jihadism-war-on-terror-isis> with greater power. (This was
Osama bin Laden’s most original insight.)

It would give ISIS the ultimate enemy, which means the ultimate street cred
in its world. It would bring with it the memories of all those past
interventions, all those snuff videos and horrifying images. It would help
inflame and so attract more members and fighters. It would give the
ultimate raison d'être to a minority religious movement that might otherwise
prove less than cohesive and, in the long run, quite vulnerable. It would
give that movement global bragging rights into the distant future.

ISIS’s urge was undoubtedly to bait the Obama administration into a
significant intervention. And in that, it may prove successful. We are
now, after all, watching a familiar version of the escalation follies at
work in Washington. Obama and his top officials are clearly on the up
escalator. In the Oval Office is a visibly reluctant president, who
undoubtedly desires neither to intervene in a major way in Iraq (from which
he proudly withdrew American troops in 2011 with their “
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-iraq-usa-obama-idUSTRE7BD1ME20
111214> heads held high”), nor in Syria (a place where he avoided sending in
the bombers and missiles back in 2013).

Unlike the previous president and his top officials, who were all confidence
and overarching plans for creating a Pax Americana across the Greater Middle
East, this one and his foreign policy team came into office intent on
managing an inherited global situation. President Obama’s only plan, such
as it was, was to get out of the Iraq War (along lines already established
by the Bush administration). It was perhaps a telltale sign then that, in
order to do so, he felt he had to “
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175176/tomgram%3A__state_of_surge,_afghanis
tan/> surge” American troops into Afghanistan. Five and a half years later,
he and his key officials still seem
<http://time.com/3211132/isis-iraq-syria-barack-obama-strategy/> essentially
plan-less, a set of now-desperate managers engaged in a seat-of-the-pants
struggle over a destabilizing Greater Middle East (and increasingly Africa
and the borderlands of Europe as well).

Five and a half years later, the president is once again
<http://www.lobelog.com/iraq-isis-neocons-project-for-a-new-american-imbrogl
io/> under pressure and being
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-co
nfront-isis.html> criticized by
<http://portside.org/2014-08-27/obama-neo-cons-and-liberal-interventionists>
assorted neocons,
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/24/us-syria-crisis-republicans-idUSK
BN0GO0RO20140824> McCainites, and this time, it seems, the
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/22/military-brass-ex-officials-pres
sure-white-house-to-expand-isis-fight-to-syria/> military high command
evidently eager to be set loose yet one more time to take out barbarism
globally -- that is, to up the ante on a losing hand. As in 2009, so today,
he’s slowly but surely giving ground. By now, the process of “mission
creep” -- a term strongly rejected by the Obama administration -- is well
underway.

It started slowly with the collapse of the U.S.-trained and U.S.-supplied
Iraqi army in Mosul and other northern Iraqi cities in the face of attacks
by ISIS. In mid-June, the aircraft carrier USS H.W. Bush with more than 100
planes was
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aircraft-carrier-iraq-isis-str
ike-persian-gulf> dispatched to the Persian Gulf and the president
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/politics/us-iraq/> sent in hundreds of
troops, including Special Forces advisers (though officially no “boots" were
to be "on the ground”). He also
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28066909> agreed to drone and
other air surveillance of the regions ISIS had taken, clearly preparation
for future bombing campaigns. All of this was happening before the fate of
the Yazidis -- a small religious sect whose communities in northern Iraq
were brutally destroyed by ISIS fighters -- officially triggered the
commencement of a limited bombing campaign suitable to a “humanitarian
crisis.”

When ISIS, bolstered by U.S. heavy weaponry captured from the Iraqi
military, began to crush the Kurdish pesh merga militia, threatening the
capital of the Kurdish region of Iraq and taking the enormous Mosul Dam, the
bombing <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/world/middleeast/iraq.html>
widened. More troops and advisers were
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/08/13/u_s_military_advisers_in_i
raq_obama_sends_in_another_130_troops_as_talk.html> sent in, and weaponry
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/216000-us-allies-to-accelerate-arming-of-
iraqi-kurdish-forces> began to flow to the Kurds, with promises of all of
the above further south once a new unity government was formed in Baghdad.
The president explained this bombing expansion by citing the threat of ISIS
blowing up the Mosul Dam and flooding downriver communities, thus supposedly
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-kurdish-forces-claim-
defeat-of-insurgents-at-strategic-mosul-dam/2014/08/18/c869a59a-26d6-11e4-86
ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html> endangering the U.S. Embassy in distant Baghdad.
(This was a lame cover story because ISIS would have had to flood parts of
its own “caliphate” in the process.)

The beheading video then provided the pretext for the possible bombing of
Syria to be put on the agenda. And once again a reluctant president, slowly
giving way, has
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/obama-authorises-spy-plane
s-over-syria-20148262454729920.html> authorized drone surveillance flights
over parts of Syria in preparation for possible bombing strikes that may
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/questions-on-airstrikes-in-syria.
html> not be long in coming.

The Incrementalism of the Reluctant

Consider this the incrementalism of the reluctant under the usual pressures
of a militarized Washington eager to let loose the dogs of war. One place
all of this is heading is into a morass of bizarre contradictions involving
Syrian politics. Any bombing of that country will necessarily involve
implicit, if not explicit, support for the murderous regime of Bashar
al-Assad, as well as for the barely existing “moderate” rebels who oppose
his regime and to whom Washington may now ship more arms. This, in turn,
could mean indirectly delivering yet more weaponry to ISIS. Add everything
up and at the moment Washington seems to be on the path that ISIS has laid
out for it.

Americans prefer to believe that all problems have solutions. There may,
however, be no obvious or at least immediate solution when it comes to ISIS,
an organization based on exclusivity and divisiveness in a region that
couldn’t be more divided. On the other hand, as a minority movement that
has already alienated so many in the region, left to itself it might with
time simply burn out or implode. We don’t know. We can’t know. But we do
have reasonable evidence from the past 13 years of what an escalating
American military intervention is likely to do: not whatever it is that
Washington wants it to do.

And keep one thing in mind: if the U.S. were truly capable of destroying or
crushing ISIS, as our secretary of state and others are urging, that might
prove to be anything but a boon. After all, it was easy enough to think, as
Americans did after 9/11, that al-Qaeda was the worst the world of Islamic
extremism had to offer. Osama bin Laden's killing was presented to us as an
ultimate triumph over Islamic terror. But ISIS lives and breathes and
grows, and across the Greater Middle East Islamic extremist organizations
are gaining membership and traction in ways that should illuminate just what
the war on terror has really delivered. The fact that we can’t now imagine
what might be worse than ISIS means nothing, given that no one in our world
could imagine ISIS before it sprang into being.

The American record in these last 13 years is a shameful one. Do it again
should not be an option.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the
<http://www.americanempireproject.com/> American Empire Project and author
of <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608461548/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> The
United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War,
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/155849586X/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> The End
of Victory Culture. He runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His
latest book, to be published in October, is
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463656/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20> Shadow
Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a
Single Superpower World (Haymarket Books).

 
Received on Sat Sep 06 2014 - 10:11:08 EDT