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: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 5:17pm
I am so glad that someone posted this article. Like I have said over and over: It is not our culture or social organization, religion, language and so on and so forth that they hate . . . it is the foreign policies that we contstruct that effect them that they hate. How logical would it be for such large groups of people so far away to hate us simply based on our way of life? It is much more reasonable that these terrorists hate us based on the way that we effect their ways of life.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 5:43pm
i agree completely!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 5:53pm
"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."

However there are extreme cultural difference that Americans cannot begin to understand. I am not saying that genocide and constant severe oppression is justifiable but culture is such a determining factor in how people perceive politics, and in the Middle East, where their culture is predominately based on a religion that is misinterpreted over and over by Americans and other outsiders, it is not necessarily for us to decide what governmental system would best suit their cultural and societal needs.

Additionally, if that is what we are doing is liberating people, why are we not "liberating" citezans in China, the Phillipines, Mexico, Sudan, Rwanda, the Congo, Guatamala, Cuba, etc., etc. . . These people, too, are subject to severe human rights violations everyday and have been treated sub-par by their corrupt governments for years but we have not rushed in to these countries guns blazing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:31pm


I agree. And the US is not imposing our system of government on them. What we are doing is supporting our allies who are most aligned with our values. We don't support Israel only because they are a democracy just like us, we support them because we need a strong ally which is on the side of freedom in a largely repressive, totalitarian region.



So you're saying that if popular support dictates a repressive Islamic fundamentalist regime that tortures dissenters and treats women like chattel, we have no right to "impose freedom" on them. I suppose we had no right to stop Hitler then-he had a great measure of public support in Germany. IMO there IS such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, even if evil happens to be popular among some of the population.



Why? Why can't we aid the process or hurry it along? In any case, democracy and freedom would not have naturally occurred in Saddam's Iraq, or maybe it would have eventually, but why do you believe it's better to stand by and let it happen on its own, while a brutal murderer threatens the world and violently subverts his own citizens' dissent?



And the US is doing nothing of the sort. We have liberated the people of Iraq and will in short order be leaving them to their own governance. Our support of Israel is at her request and has nothing to do with us "conquering" anyone. Our problem with fanatic Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations is not a question of us wanting to "conquer" them, it is a question of defending our citizens against their attacks. So your historical examples have no relevance to the current world situation.



And we don't. We defend our national security, and we try to aid those struggling to free themselves from oppression. We see the US actions from completely different perspectives.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 9:58am
"So you're saying that if popular support dictates a repressive Islamic fundamentalist regime that tortures dissenters and treats women like chattel, we have no right to "impose freedom" on them. I suppose we had no right to stop Hitler then-he had a great measure of public support in Germany. IMO there IS such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, even if evil happens to be popular among some of the population."

So are your saying that instead of waiting for the american Civil war, France, Brittain and Germany and others should have come into the US and imposed an end to slavery, where BLACKS were treated like chattel? After all, America was already a democracy then, so this fits EXACTLY your example. Pressure, Yes. Imposing: absolutely not!


Edited 8/19/2004 10:10 am ET ET by nicecanadianlady

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 12:03pm
Thanks:)

That's the point I have always wanted to make. It think it is important to know the reason and also communicate it to the citizens and then take the necessary actions against terrorists instead of arrogantly saying that they hate us and our way of life.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 3:09pm


Yes, I think they would have been morally justified in doing so, absolutely.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 3:27pm


And which of our foreign policies have affected the lives of Al Quaeda? OBL claims he attacked us for sullying the sacred land of Saudi Arabi with our troops. Only problem is, the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia wanted us there. Since when do individuals get to dictate a country's foreign policy by slaughtering innocent civilians? I keep hearing vague talk that it's about the US's "imperialistic" foreign policy, or it's all about oil. But what country have we "conquered"? What country's oil do we control? (Seems to me if we really wanted to get our hands on all that oil we'd be supporting the muslim countriesover Israel, since they have most of it). What has our foreign policy done that has affected OBL and his followers in any way shape or form? Really, I'm just asking the question, the statement is often made that it is our foreign policy which has caused them such hardship that resulted in the attacks. How has our foreign policy caused them hardship? What have we done to radical fundamentalist Islam that warrants attacks such as these? The major issue they have with us is that we support a non-Islamic nation against an Islamic uprising. But the reason we do that is because we support freedom over oppression, and we do not support allowing policy to be dictated by cowards who attack defenseless civilians to further their causes. We are and always have been willing to help bring peaceful compromise to the Israel/Palestine situation, but we don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't expect our allies not to search out and destroy terrorists.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 4:58pm
<>


Please tell me you are joking. If this was true that we truly did support freedom over oppression and that that was our motivating factor then why are we not liberating people around the world from their oppressive and corrupt governments? People in Myanamar (Burma) are killed daily for dissenting, in Sudan and Rwanda children are kidnapped for the sole purpose of being used as human shields during combat by rebel forces, and just to the south of us in Mexico, young women are kidnapped by the police and sold into sex trade, so if the true blue reason for our presence in the Middle East is freedom then would it not be logical for us to be in these countries too? But we are not.

In terms of Israel and their policies towards Palestinean terrorism, Israeli violence is only government supported terrorism. The United States has not acted as a neutrality in this situation, seeking above all peace and freedom for both the people of Israel and Palestine, but as a behind the scenes instigator. Denouncing the Palestinians for their guerilla and rudimentary warfare that may seem like terrorism is naive. There is no superpower funding and supporting them as they are continually attacked everyday, there is not even a super power playing a mediator. Just a super power supporting Israel, hiding behind a facade of freedom and liberation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 8:40pm
For some reason I can't copy and paste right now, but I'll try and answer your question. No, I am not joking. Just because we cannot go around the world overthrowing every oppressive regime on the planet does not mean that we are not on the side of freedom over oppression. We do not ally ourselves with repressive regimes, and we take military action when we have national security interest and economic interest in doing so, like every other nation on earth. It would be nice if we had the resources to free all oppressed people the world over, obviously no one has that. The US provides more humanitarian aid than any other country on earth. We are not blind to the problems you mention, but not every problem is within our ability to solve.

I never said freedom is the entire reason we are in the Middle East, I said it is the reason we support Israel over the PLO, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Obviously we have economic and national security interest in the survival and stability of free democratic societies like Israel in the middle east, as well as ideological interest.

There is absolutely nothing to support your claim that the US is an instigator in the Israeli Palestinian situation. If anything what brief, fragile peace has ever occurred between the two has been largely the result of US intervention. But the two cultures despise each other-the US can do little if anything about that. What we can do is be firm in our stance that whatever the conflict, those who target innocent unarmed civilians MUST not come out ahead-to allow that is to motivate and reward any who would use this brutal tactic to advance their aims. No, we are not completely neutral-we stand on the side of legitimate military action-even with unintended civilian casualties-over terrorism.

But you still have not answered my question. What quarrel does Al Quaeda have with us, aside from our being in Saudi Arabia with the permission of that nation's government? We are constantly having the idea shoved down our throats that it is US policy that has led to the ruin of Muslim people and the fostering of terrorism, that it's not our religion and culture they hate just what we have done to them-what exactly have we done to harm al quaeda or any other radical fundamentalist Muslims, aside from supporting a nation that they despise? Why do they have a right to brutally dictate to us who our allies should and should not be? I'm really interested in hearing how US foreign policy has caused all of the poverty and desperation I keep hearing claimed we caused. How'd we do it? I've never gotten a valid answer to that question.

Pages