Of course, the authors show that fossil fuels drives American policy in the region. The Clinton and Bush administrations both negotiated with the Taliban for the construction of a natural gas pipeline to be built in Afghan territory despite clear-cut evidence of the regime's human rights abuses. However, the book also makes the eye-popping suggestion that U.S. representatives may have recklessly threatened the Taliban prior to the September 11 attack, thereby provoking Al Qaeda into action.
Basically, Brisard and Dasquie explain that Saudi Arabia supports radical Islamic movements (including the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden) in order to extend its hegemony over the area. Saudi support of the Taliban, for example, helped keep Afghanistan from falling under Iranian influence. Interestingly, the authors point out that the first arrest warrant ever issued against Usama Bin Laden came not from the U.S. -- which wanted to overlook Usama's behavior in order to keep Saudi oil flowing -- but from Libya.
I must admit that all of this came as quite a surprise to me, since Saudi Arabia has always been portrayed as a staunch ally of the U.S. In fact, Brisard and Dasquie recall how U.S. oil companies helped the country develop, but they also show that the Kingdom remains dependent on religion to maintain control over its people. So the country is practically schizophrenic in its need to simultaneously maintain business ties with the U.S. and defend against the spread of Arab nationalism by covertly preaching the gospel of anti-Americanism.
The authors go into considerable detail illuminating the people, organizations and financial relationships that make the Saudi-supported terror network possible. The indictments reach the highest levels of Saudi society. In this light, it appears that Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda simply spun out of their master's control and took the anti-American cause too far.
All this should give us pause to consider why the U.S. allowed the Saudis to play such a dangerous game for so long. Also, one would think that prudence should compel the U.S. to develop an energy policy that does not depend on Middle Eastern oil. But already, Brisard and Dasquie report that talks for the pipeline have resumed since the installation of the Karzai regime in Afghanistan in May 2002.
On a technical note, the book could benefit from additional editorial work to correct a few grammatical errors (presumably due to the translation from French to English?) and several footnote mistakes. Stylistically, the author's research sometimes makes for dry reading, but that is only because the facts have been meticulously documented and presented. So although "Forbidden Truth" is at times far from entertaining, the reader is nevertheless impressed with the professionalism of the research and its air-tight conclusions. (Indeed, sensing the threat that the book poses to its business empire, the Bin Laden family succeeded in getting the book banned in Switzerland.)
"Forbidden Truth" is recommended for anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the dynamics underlying the war on terror.
Unfortunately, Forbidden Truth falls short of expectations: it was obviously written in a hurry, to capitalize on 9/11. Plus, I disagree with those reviewers who say it is well researched; looking at the footnotes, one is struck by how heavily the authors rely on a small handful of sources, primarily what appear to be Swiss banking publications (Brisard and Dasquie don't bother to explain the provenance of their sources). The evidence for some of their more damning "revelations" is exceedingly thin, and in a few cases wouldn't pass muster in a high school journalism class. The authors cite no Saudi sources whatsoever and neither appears ever to have set foot in the Middle East.
Moreover, the title of the US edition of the book is very misleading: Forbidden Truth has precious little to say about the Taliban and the ongoing search for Osama bin Laden. Instead, the book quite oddly shifts emphasis to Muammar Qaddafi. Why the Libyan leader should merit an entire chapter and an Appendix in this short book is beyond me; it seems the authors got hold of an old Interpol document and felt compelled to publish it somewhere.
Despite these misgivings, I gave Forbidden Truth 3 stars because it does raise a few critical points and open worthwhile avenues of investigation and research. It's not that I disbelieve Brisard and Dasquie; in fact, the Truth is probably much worse than they present it. It's the shoddiness of their presentation that I take issue with.