Prior to reading this book, I was a fan of Michael Scheuer's work, and I own all of his books, including books he authored the introductions to.
However, I am inclined to agree with the other two reviews, because while I think his theories on the Cold War mentality and the current Islamist threat are interesting, the book is far too provocative with too much invective and war-mongering language for my liking.
He repeatedly praises Ronald Reagan; blames the "national security threat" of an over-dependence on foreign oil to environmentalists, which he uses such invective language to attack; he talks about his desire to kill Soviets; attacks other authors of books unfairly; and too often uses pro-war terms, like "annihilating" the enemy and disregarding the deaths of innocents for American goals.
He continues on to make the case that everyone else is wrong but him and he and only he sees the truth because of his credentials. However, I find this ironic, because he criticizes others that have the same or better credentials than himself, such as Richard Clarke, for what they have written about and how stupid they are, implicitly calling them sissies for not taking a more aggressive action against Islamists despite the consequences of those actions.
The book could have made for an interesting read if he focused more on a theory than attacking those that disagree with him or whom he feels are cowards. Instead, he comes off more like a male Ann Coulter, using such distasteful language and alienating his otherwise loyal readers.
His other books were fantastic but this one really blows: "The only convincing case then for anything going to hell in this book concerns the author's credibility as a serious political analyst," and that's the truth.