What Osama really wants...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
What Osama really wants...
83
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 11:44am
I am posting this article in hope that people really start expecting/debating the US leaders' to act responsible if their intention is to save lives and provide national security.

http://www.alternet.org/story/19102/


Taking on Imperial Hubris

By Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com. Posted June 30, 2004.


An anonymous CIA analyst has penned a new book that reveals how it's not hatred of our liberal democracy, but hatred of our policies that fuels terrorism.



The book has an apt title: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. And the author spells out "why." We are losing because of the misguided war on Iraq and the upsurge in terrorism it has engendered.

Sadly, that conclusion was validated last week by the widespread, coordinated attacks by the Iraqi resistance – attacks that brought Vietnam to mind and, specifically, the country-wide "Tet" offensive by Communist forces in early 1968 that made Walter Cronkite and many other Americans realize we had all been badly misled into thinking that that war was winnable.

The final week of formal U.S. occupation of Iraq was a bad one. And the last thing the Bush administration needed was publication of the challenging judgments of a CIA analyst who devoted 17 years to tracking Al Qaeda and other terrorists. That analyst (let's call him Mike) wrote that the Iraqi adventure was "an unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat." He emphasized, "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Mike added that the United States has "waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups."

Asked yesterday to comment on these biting charges, National Security assistant Condoleezza Rice refused on grounds that she did not know who Anonymous is. Did she not think to ask the CIA? If I had no trouble finding out, certainly she should have none.

Worse still for the administration, during an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell on June 23, Mike rubbed salt in White House wounds, subjecting to ridicule the dumbed-down bromide that what motivates bin Laden and his Muslim followers is hatred of our "freedom," our "democracy."

It's the Policy, Stupid!

"It's not hatred of us as a society, it's hatred of our policies," Mike insisted. He gave pride of place to the neuralgic issue of Israel. With candor not often heard on American television, he emphasized "It's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel," adding that bin Laden's "genius" is his ability to exploit those U.S. policies most offensive to Muslims – "Our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian peninsula, in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims."

Asked how bin Laden views the war in Iraq specifically, Mike said bin Laden looks on it as proof of America's hostility toward Muslims; that America "is willing to attack any Muslim country that dares defy it; that it is willing to do almost anything to defend Israel. The war is certainly viewed as an action meant to assist the Israeli state. It is...a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does."

Mike drove home this general message again yesterday on ABC's "This Week." He argued that it is U.S. policies that "drive the terrorism," and said failure to change those policies could mean decades of war. Only if the American people learn the truth can more effective policies be fashioned and implemented, he added.

What Sets Mike's Teeth on Edge

Here is where Mike's understated outrage shows through most clearly. The undercurrent in both interviews is that his analysis was offered well before the war but, as he told NBC, "senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community (were unwilling) to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president...Whatever danger was posed by Saddam...was almost irrelevant...the boost that (the war) would give to Al Qaeda was easily seen."

Many experienced intelligence analysts will find it easy to identify with Mike's frustration. Put on your analyst hat for a few minutes and put yourself in his place. You have studied the issue with painstaking professionalism for 17 years and have acquired an expert view of the forces at play and the likely result of this or that policy. You warn, you warn, and you warn, as Mike did. And yet, because of wooden-headedness, stupidity or sycophancy, your superiors disregard your views and you are reduced to looking on helplessly as a calamitous course is set for the country.

Adding insult to injury, you hear Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confess, as he did on June 6 in Singapore, that "The troubling unknown is whether the extremists...are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. It is quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this."

For self-confident analysts, all this creates powerful incentive to publish their own analysis. Once published there is always a chance it might have some resonance – perhaps even influence. In any event, they will be able to tell their grandchildren: Don't blame me; this is what I tried to get them to understand.

Many of us have been there, done that – including me during the '60s when I had a ringside seat at the crafting of U.S. policy toward Vietnam, while serving as principal CIA analyst of Soviet policy toward Vietnam and China. As U.S. forces got bogged down in the quagmire of Vietnam, senior officials in Washington began to indulge the wishful thought that the Soviets could be pressured or cajoled into "using their influence" to help the United States find a graceful way out – and that, until then, we had to "stay the course."

Though a relatively junior analyst at the time, I had already become convinced that the Soviet Union, in fact, had precious little influence with the Vietnamese Communists, mostly because it had sold them down the river at the Geneva Conference in 1954. If U.S. policymakers thought differently, it was important to send them our own analysis and try to dialogue with them. My conclusions, however, were thought to be unwelcome among policymakers, and so an earlier generation of "senior bureaucrats" refused to send those judgments downtown.

Going Public

In early 1967, I drafted an article in which I documented my case for the judgment that "the USSR's voice counts for little in Hanoi...when it comes to North Vietnam's conduct of the war." After receiving clearance from CIA's Publications Review Board (PRB), the article was published in the scholarly journal, "Problems of Communism." Like me, Anonymous Mike received PRB clearance with no changes required.

While understandable, speculation that clearance of Mike's book betokens an intent by senior CIA officials to take a swipe a those responsible for U.S. mistakes on Iraq and terrorism does not ring true. It is not as unusual as press reports suggest for a serving CIA official to publish a book, although Mike's was, because of the subject, bound to be highly controversial.

In my view, there is good news in the approval he obtained. It is a sign that there remain pockets of professionals at the CIA who are determined to honor their responsibility to protect First Amendment and other Constitutional rights of CIA employees.

I regret to admit that I was not certain this was still a sure thing, in view of the way senior CIA officials have played fast and loose with the Constitution on more consequential matters. Two summers ago, CIA Director George Tenet was a willing co-conspirator in the successful effort by the Bush administration to use counterfeit "intelligence" – including a known forgery – to deceive Congress into ceding its Constitutional power to declare war.

It is a safe assumption, though, that serious CIA analysts are glad to see Mike's book out on the street. His judgments are congruent with what substantive analysts there have been saying for years about Iraq and terrorism – without much sign that policymakers were listening. Perhaps Dr. Rice and other senior officials will get the book and read it. That might help someone like Secretary Rumsfeld, for example, who often refers to the fact that some key factors are "unknown" and/or "unknowable" and complains that he frequently encounters a lack of "situational awareness."

I was embarrassed for Rumsfeld when he was on ABC's "This Week" months ago and tried to field a question about how to reduce the number of terrorists. "How do you persuade people not to become suicide bombers; how do you reduce the number of people attracted to terrorism? No one knows how to reduce that," he complained.

Again, it's the policy. Well before the war in Iraq, CIA analysts provided an assessment intended to educate senior policymakers to the fact that "the forces fueling hatred of the U.S. and fueling Al Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." The assessment cited a Gallup poll of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." Again, that was before the attack on Iraq.

Too Little, Too Late?

Over the weekend former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke echoed many of the points made in Mike's book. Clarke said the invasion of Iraq was an "enormous mistake" that is costing untold lives, strengthening Al Qaeda, and breeding a new generation of terrorists. "The hatred that has been engendered by this invasion will last for generations," he added.

Which reminded me: With all due respect – and respect is indeed due the likes of Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, and Anonymous Mike, who broke fraternity rules in speaking truth – why did they not do so before the war? One of the most depressing facts of the whole experience is the dearth of serving officials who were willing to speak out about the lies while it might have done some good.

Is it legitimate to ask Clarke, O'Neil, and Mike why they waited so long, when – just conceivably – their belated candor might have made a difference? Surely they did not choose to put their publishers preferences as to timing before the cost of "untold lives."

As for intelligence officers, the only ones to blow the whistle publicly before the war are Katherine Gunn of the United Kingdom and Australian intelligence officer Andrew Wilkie. It is a sad commentary that of the hundreds of U.S. intelligence officers with inside knowledge regarding the abuse of intelligence and other indignities regarding Iraq, not one – serving or retired – not one proved willing to risk his/her neck, career, friendships or serene retirement to stave off our country's first war of aggression.

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 9:06pm
Osama who???

Even though he is the alleged person behind 9-11, he was not as important as Sadaam.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 11:40pm
Ok, so Osama doesn't like our support of Israel and doesn't want us in Arab nations-is this some kind of newsflash to anyone? Sorry, we don''t allow groups to dictate our foreign policy by brutally slaughtering innocent civilians. I won't go into why our support for Israel is right and necessary, that's another whole issue, but frankly when someone chooses terrorism as their means of achieving goals, their goals really don't matter so much anymore. We cannot reward those kinds of tactics by giving Osama what he wants-we will only inspire every lunatic on the planet to start slaughtering civilians if their demands are not met. If Osama has a problem with our policies there are other ways to address it-Gandhi achieved much more than Osama ever will without killing a single innocent person. What Osama really wants is the power the US has and he doesn't have-but like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam before him, he hasn't yet figured out that our strength and prosperity comes from being a free society, not from brutally forcing our agenda on others.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:08am
We are all the centers of our own universe. We are not necessarily the center of everyone elses.

I believe that much of what bin Laden does has only a small amount to do, at this point, with changing American policy. His acts have much more to do with uniting the Muslems behind his brand of radical Islam. He has shown Muslems that they are not "helpless" victims. He has shown the Muslems, if they act like him, do have "power." His acts and the acts he directs are acts designed to 1. silence the moderates Islamic leaders, who can be protrayed as either "helpless" to keep "Western imperialism" out of Islamic countries, and 2. unite the Muslim people, including those in Southeast Asia, specifically those in the Philipines, Thailand, India, and Burma (sorry, not the right name now, and I don't have time to look it up) behind the type of fundamentalist Islam he believe in.

In other words, bin Laden is fighting a religious war, but his real target is the "secular" form of Islam that most of the Muslems in the world actually practices. He is putting on a show, not for America, but the angry young Islamic men and women, who he hope to recruit to a radical cause, to overthrow the moderate leaders in the Islamic world. American are the target, but not necessarliy the audience.

If you are going to play analyist, then I believe you need to think this way:

There is a secret world of terrorist, spy agencies, and covert operators. By their very definition, what they do is secret. Whenever any of these groups send a public message, your first question is not, "What is the message?" Your first question is, "Who is the message for?"

If the acts of terror are "messages," I believe, at least at this point, the message is not so much for the West, as it is for the those in the Muslim world who feel disenfranchised. If that is the case, then the message isn't, "West, get out." It is, "Join me, and learn how to be empowered." Once that goal is reached, then bin Laden sees the next step as a war on the secular Muslim governments, and, once that goal is achieved, the next step is the real war on the West.

If I'm right, then the response to the "message" of 911 by America, by the invasion of Iraq, was exactly the response bin Laden wanted, and will help him achieve his goal of recruting disenfranchied Muslems to a much more radical form of religion, and helps him get ready for the next step in the war, the overthrow of secular Islam governments.

As I said on another board, bin Laden is playing chess, and America is playing checkers.

Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:26am
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.  -
Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:30am

"I won't go into why our support for Israel is right and necessary..."


This is the only part of your post that I disagree with

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.  -
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:47am
Why of course my "osama who" line was meant to be very sarcastic, thanks for noticing. When was the last time you heard Bush bring him up? I am sure the first thought when anyone says terrorist is Sadaam, not Osama. Who was more dangerous Osama or Sadaam? The biggest mistake was going into Iraq because most imporantly, it took away from finding Osama and took many out of Afghanistan. I still would like to know why Iraq was more important.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:49am
You put 140,000 troops and SHOCK AND AWE into capturing Bin Laden in late 2001, we'd have him in a cell or in a box.

As usual, Bush is a day late and a dollar short. Who else could pin down the worlds most wanted man, then just turn your back on him and let him escape.

And by that I mean, he turned it over to the Afghans and had them go after him after tora bora.

What do have to show for it? A lonely dictator who didn't have 2 guys to defend him while Bin Laden is out there and The United States will be attacked again before the summer is over.

Thanks Bush for not making us safer since 9/11.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 1:32pm
Well, I didn't say change the policies to Osama's whim. The point is to first understand why the enemy is doing what he is doing.. instead of harping on, thye hate us, they hate our freedom etc etc. The main reason is US policy. If it is so well known, why do I hear the Bush saying that they hate our freedom..all the time. Have you heard him or even previous administration say the real reason of attacks on American people....

>>>What Osama really wants is the power the US has and he doesn't have-but like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam before him, he hasn't yet figured out that our strength and prosperity comes from being a free society, not from brutally forcing our agenda on others.<<<

Osama was used by US in war against Russia and then discarded. Hence the anger. If you want to think the about go on keep thinking. As the CIA agent with 20 something years of experience said, he is against the policies. Beleive me US policy sucks for otehr countries. US promised India to help combat terrorism in India when they asked India to help in war against terrorism in Afganistan but didn't live up to the promise.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Sun, 07-25-2004 - 10:40am
"but frankly when someone chooses terrorism as their means of achieving goals, their goals really don't matter so much anymore. "

But let's face it, the US did train Osama and his gang when they were doing terrorism that SUITED the US, when they were fighting the russians. They were killing civilians then, but they were called 'freedom fighters'.

That's the whole problem with the US foreign policy. It is riddled with double standards. It supported Saddam's goals in the Iran-Iraq war when he was gassing iranian civilians, and later, Kurds.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 2:50pm
-- Who else could pin down the worlds most wanted man, then just turn your back on him and let him escape.

I believe you are referring to former President Bill Clinton with this comment.

Pages