The Triple Agent: The al-Qaeda Mole who Infiltrated the CIA

A. Yes. It was paced like a novel. The penultimate scene comes in the first chapter, so you have an idea, but not a complete notion, of how it will all come out. Then, each of the main people is described as the time advances forward. Finally, at the end, comes the denouement and an epilogue. Q. What did you learn? A. I learned about Al-Qaeda's structure, about some of the top members besides Bin Laden. About the secret police in Jordan. About American bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan. About the Central Intelligence Agency. There's a lot to learn, but it all comes in the reading. You don't need to study anything. It's a very enjoyable read. Q. What complaints do you have, if any, about the book? A. Only that the author seems to rather "lionize" many of the participants in this affair, the "good guys," I mean. Whereas he demonizes some of the "bad guys." He does this from the viewpoint of a patriotic American. No one can fault him for that. But he really does not present other perspectives. Q. But doesn't he take the "mole's" viewpoint often? A. Yes, but this so-called "mole," a lost human being if ever there was one, is portrayed as a weakling who let his fantasies run away from him. This is certainly true. The Americans working at Khost, the CIA base, however, are presented as heroes. Some, due to the mole's dastardly act, are seen as fallen heroes. Q. Aren't they heroes? A. No. They were doing their jobs, which they chose to do. They all thought they were "warriors," and they probably were. But I just think they lacked self-insight in this regard. Q. What regard is that? A. Why did they need to place themselves in this dangerous position? Who were they trying to prove themselves to? At least among the "bad guys," we know that some of them were actually trying to prove themselves to Allah. But the "good guys" seemed to be trying to prove themselves to themselves. There's some difference here. But why this need for proving oneself on either side, good guys or bad guys? Q. But what does the author have to do with people's motivations? A. It's possible that he read them right, but he didn't give us this type of interpretation. I mean he never indicated that war, aggression, fighting, all of it, is based in people's minds. To the contrary, he makes it seem that Americans are just honest cowboys trying their best to save the world from evil terrorists. Q. Is that not the case? A. I don't think so. America controls much of the world's resources and commits quiet terrorism against people all over the world. This is cloaked in various ways but the terror is still there. On the other hand, I don't think most Americans see this. They live in an isolated world where they can consume an overabundance without feeling any guilt. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Warrick promotes this ostrich-in-the-sand attitude by painting these CIA and private security people as heroes. It's really difficult to see the truth of this terrorist war, living in the United States, or living in Pakistan. The terrorists are no more clear-headed than Americans are. Both see this as a zero-sum game, one side wins, one side loses. But it need not be that way. Q. So you think Warrick should have focused on alternatives to combating aggression. But he's a journalist, not a sociologist. A. That's true, and he stayed within his realm of expertise. Also, his sources are documented page by page at the back of the book.

Dissatisfied when after 3 paragraphs the plot just Jumps up and smacks the reader for buying it ..

I have listen to the book about 7 times so far, it gets better every time highly recommended