Now that we are past the mid-term repudiation of George W. Bush and his policies, it may be anti-climactic to review two books that critique much that has been foolhardy about his foreign policy. But if either author is correct in his analysis, we are a long way from recognizing the seriousness of the conflict between religion and foreign policy.

Indeed, these books speak to the irrationality that threaten us no matter who is in charge of the American Republic. Taken in tandem, Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Michael Scheurer's Imperial Hubris ought to send a bolt of therapeutic fear through the reader.

Harris' thesis is that the notion of making decisions, especially national and international policy decisions based on religious faith is dangerous to our survival.

He opens with a hair-raising description of a Muslim youth, wrapped in plastic explosives, about to blast himself and the infidels around him to "Kingdom Come." His passing will not mourned. Rather, it will be celebrated by his family and friends because they, too, have faith.

Our justified fear of such irrational, faith-based behavior must not be reserved for Muslim jihadists, says Harris. Fundamentalist Christians, such as the ones who have so enthusiastically support Mr. Bush, are equally to be feared, he charges.

Harris provides quotes from the old and new testament that would seemingly justify actions similar to those being taken by Muslim terrorists.

What is a person who thinks the Bible is the infallible word of God (and there are plenty of them) to do?

Harris answers his own question: "Whenever a man imagines that he needs only the truth of a proposition without evidence---that unbelievers will go to hell, that Jews drink the blood of infants---he becomes capable of anything."

"For many years," Harris writes, "U.S. policy in the Middle East has been shaped, at least in part, by the interests that fundamentalist Christians have in the future of a Jewish state. . . Christians support Israel because they believe that the final consolidation of Jewish power in the Holy Land---specifically the rebuilding of Solomon's temple---will usher in both the second coming of Christ and the final destruction of the Jews."

Harris quotes President Reagan, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress to support his contention that the fundamentalist view of the Middle East is driving our foreign policy.

Are we being governed by religious zealots? "According to Gallup, 35 percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of the Creator of the universe," Harris writes. "Another 48 percent believe it is the inspired word of the same [inerrant God]."

A 2003 Pew survey found that 44 percent of Americans believe God gave Israel to the Jews. A Zogby poll in October 2006 found that almost a third of all likely U.S. voters believe or strongly believe that "Israel must have all of the promised land, including Jerusalem, to facilitate the second coming of the messiah."

"How is it," Harris challenges his readers, "that, in this one area of our lives, we have convinced ourselves that our beliefs about the world can float entirely free of reason and evidence?"

If you find Harris's views extreme, consider those of Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's al-Qai'ida unit. Scheuer quit the Bush administration in disgust at the ineptitude of their handling of the so-called war on terror.

Although Scheuer can get tangled up in his own syntax sometimes to the point where you aren't quite sure what he wants you to think, his thesis emerges most vividly:

1. The Bush administration has been driven by faith in its own infallibility. "Don't confuse us with facts," even if you are an al Qai'ida expert.
2. Al Qai'ida is a faith-driven organization. It's all about driving out the infidels and rebuilding the pre-crusades Islamic empire from Spain to Indonesia.
3. Osama bin Laden is a man of his word. He tells you in clear language what he intends to do, first giving you a chance to repent---it's the Muslim custom---and then does it. It may take a year or two, but he will do it.
4. In the world of Islam, bin Laden is the main man. He is their champion. Youth are flocking to him.
5. It is insane to describe the policy as a war on terror and then respond as though it were a criminal act by thugs to be brought to justice. We must treat it as a war, a true war, says Scheuer, with all the ferocity of war.

Where Scheuer gets confusing is in his insistence that the presence of U.S. forces in Muslim lands, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, fuels the fires of radical Islam. He argues we cannot win the war in Afghanistan because Muslims are committed to the long-haul struggle, and because our very presence inflames their faith-driven zeal. "The idea that we can control Afghanistan with 22,000 soldiers, most of whom are indifferent to the task, is far-fetched," says Scheuer in a Harper's magazine interview. "The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 soldiers and utter brutality."

Scheuer fails to reconcile this criticism with his insistence that we fight radical Islam as a "true war." What would he suggest as a strategy? Barricade our ports? Nuke Teheran? In an interview with the Minneapolis Tribune, Scheuer says there is a very real risk that bin Laden's agents will, in due course, set off a nuclear bomb in the United States. "I think we would be silly to assume they can't do it. Which is one reason I've been so outspoken about trying to control our borders."

Scheuer's hard-nosed analysis, taken together with Harris's highly rational expose of faith as the driving force behind radical Islam, and equally rational condemnation of faith as an American policy guide, is truly a reason for the terror that we ought to be feeling.

We have nothing to fear but faith, itself.

Alan Knight is former editor of New England Farmer and an ex-military intelligence officer.