I didn't mean to sound as though there are clear sides. It just seemed like a conflict of interests to me. On the one hand he had a personal affinity for European life but he also seemed to think that insurgent groups that only targeted combatants were legitimate. If that is your conception it seems to me very contray to his beliefs to work for Western intelligence which targets both insurgents and terrorists.

That was an excellent introduction also. It was included in the edition that I have. So apart from mild doubt did nobody else have significant doubts about it's veracity? I am a little upset that my professor assigned it to me.