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: 04-22-2003
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 11:18am
The fact is that Us has made PAkistan a non Nato ally which mean Pakistan have the right to own a stock pile of WMD. Also my friends from Pakistan themselves say that Mussarrafe is bad for India. He can harm India. So even though on surface US seems friendly to both India and Pakistan, the policies are going to harm India in future when(see I am not saying if) situtation is not this great. Pakistani junta and ISI are against India. How long is Mussarrafe gonna be in power. Right now he gets money from US and so he has become US puppet. Do you think this situation is permanent. Al qaeda is very active in pakistan and they have been attacking India for decades. Don't you think the logic applied to Iraqfor war actually applies to Pakistan much much more? The ploicy adopted by US has left future scary from my POV and many Indians.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 11:59am
but the brutal tactics are on both sides! In fact, it could be argued it's worse on the Israeli, because it's state sponsored. On the palestinian side, it's illegal organizations, not people elected democratically by citizens. Why should the civilian population be punished by acts done by radicals? Did all white republicans get targetted when Tim McVeigh did his acts of terrorism? Did the world show 'favoritism' to anyone who isn't an 'extreme right wing'? Why can't people not differentiate between palestinian people and palestinian terrorists? Let's not forget that palestinians don't have any power of any kind. People without power sometimes resort to terrorism, as it is the weapon of 'last resort' that throughout history that has been used by those who have no military or no power of any kind. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't excuse terrorism in any way shape or form! But my points are that 1) palestinians and terrorist groups are two separate things. The fact that the masses may share in the goals of the terrorists (and may even support the means, as they see it as a war) does not make them acceptable targets, even as 'collateral damage'. and 2) America's favoritism, and double standards (for example turning a blind eye to Israel's huge stash of weapons of mass destruction) is making the situation worse, and makes arab feel that the terrorism is justified to 'balance the power'. Wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki an attack on civilians? Why do americans feel THAT was justified. Isn't ANY attack on civilians wrong? After all, that is why we all agree that terrorism is wrong! If Hiroshima is 'OK' because it 'saved american' lives, then we are saying that terrorism against Israeli is also "OK" because it might save palestinian lives. I think ANY attacks on civilians is wrong. No exceptions whatsoever.

Why did the IRA stop its attack, while Israel is still being attacked? Could it be that their way isn't working?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 12:01pm
Did we show favoritism to UK versus Ireland when the IRA was active? Did we let them stock up new WMDs, did we ignore abuse of prisoners and killing of Irish citizens? I beg to differ.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 1:25pm


Exactly-the US has shown plenty of willingness to work towards peace with Palestinians who are not sponsoring terrorism. What we will not do is take the side of the terrorists themselves. The civilian population should NOT be punished by acts done by radicals-if some civilians are unintentionally harmed when Israel goes after terrorists, it is the fault of the TERRORISTS. It seems that a lot of folks have things backwards. Are civilized societies not supposed to go after terrorists because some innocent civilians might inadvertently be harmed? That policy is surely going to give terrorism the upper hand in world affairs if adopted.



So you're saying that NO civilian casualties are acceptable in the war against terrorism? We simply allow terrorists to target civilians at will but handcuff ourselves from defending against their attacks?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 1:27pm
< Did we show favoritism to UK versus Ireland when the IRA was active? Did we let them stock up new WMDs, did we ignore abuse of prisoners and killing of Irish citizens?>

We did not show favoritism to the UK over Ireland, we did however show favoritism on both sides to those who pledged to end the assault on civilians. Once again, i have to disagree with you. There IS a difference between targeting civilians and unintended civilian casualties.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 1:44pm
Yes, there is a difference between targetting civilians and unintended civilian casualties. But how many 'unintended' casualties in Ireland do you know about related to attacks on IRA strongholds and bases, despite the large number of casualties by the IRA terrorists? How many unintended palestinian casualties have you heard about? The palestinian casualties BY FAR EXCEED the number of Israeli casualties from terrorist act.

My conclusion is that the Israeli forces aren't particularily careful to avoid civilian casualties (or even foreign peace workers for that matter)..

The numbers tell their own story.

Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 1:44pm

"This is where we have a fundamental difference. I believe freedom and self-determination is a universal human desire, not one the US is "imposing" on anyone. "


I see from your response that we are treading into areas that we have already debated.

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: 06-16-2004
Mon, 08-16-2004 - 1:51pm
Totally agree. We don't have to look far to see this fact. Here in Canada, we value slightly different freedoms that in the US (or in a different order of priority), and our self-determination is addressed differently - our democratic system is different. That is true in all countries. For some people, any democracy without proportional representation isn't real democracy. For these people, neither Americans or Canadians have real 'self-determination" (I've had that discussion with someone recently..). What about those people who have been excluded from that 'self-determination' in the US? Women didn't vote until less than a hundred years ago, and countries who did before the US didn't try to 'shove it down the throat' of the US! They didn't show favoritism either to influence it. Not all countries are on the same schedule, and the US was not always ahead of the pack! Has anyone forgotten that the civil rights movement was only decades ago? And yet the arrogance of SOME americans is just totally baffling! Where were these people when the US was far behind?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:41pm


Right, and the US has no plans of liberating (aka "imposing our idea of freedom") on Canada any time soon. But are you suggesting that repressive Islamic fundamentalist regimes, where people are killed or tortured for disagreeing, or Saddam's regime for example, are just different forms of freedom and self-determination that we arrogant Americans just can't understand? Whoever said that we insist on every country having the exact same form of government we do? Not me. What I said is that freedom and self-determination are universal human desires, and I don't believe they are quite as ambiguous and difficult to define as you seem to think they are.



Far behind whom? Are you implying that the rest of the world was a nice peaceful utopia, free of racial and sexual discrimination, while the US was back there in the dark ages? Sorry, but even today the US is light years ahead of much of the world (and no, don't get your feathers ruffled, I'm not saying ahead of Canada) in terms of civil rights, women's rights, religious and political freedom and human rights. In any case, you seem also to be saying that since at one time before I was born the US had civil rights issues, it is arrogant of me to believe that all people desire freedom and self-determination now. Sorry, I don't follow that line of reasoning.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:06pm
No, I'm not in any way suggesting that repressive Islamic fundamentalist regimes are different forms of freedom and self-determination. Where did you get that? But not all middle-eastern countries are like what you describe. And the reality is that there are different forms of self-determination. Even these islamic fundamentalists don't get to power without some popular support. The reality is that the US is worried that in an election, they will WIN! Then what? People around the world ELECT democratically governments that do not support the US's policies. Even us in Canada (a fully democratic country) got threatened by your ambassador because Canada didn't support the attack on Iraq (something most americans probably don't know).

In terms of 'schedule', what I meant is that I believe that democracy and freedom needs to occur on its own natural schedule in each country. Yes, we can influence it, as we did influence for exemple south africa. But that's very different from imposing it, or attacking a country or supporting it's enemies to achieve that end.

If we look at the history of humanity, there have been always different places in the world that have been at different levels of civilization. There were many great civilizations with each their own good and bad points. From the romans, ancient greece, to the great chinese dynasties, incas/aztech, the ottoman empire, ancient egypt, to name just a few. At the peak of each of these civilisations, they considered others to be 'savages', beneath them, and tried to conquer them and impose themselves.

Personally I think the great evidence that we are REALLY civilized is if we DIDN"T do that , and that we tried to use persuation and influence rather than sheer power to accomplish that. The civilization that will achieve this task will be the one that survives for good.

Pages