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: 06-16-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 11:26am
those links are WAY weaker than those between Saudi Arabia and Al Quaeda. Not to mention other countries. After all the US, France, Germany and others also helped Al Quaeda too, when it was fighting the Russian. Having trained them and given them financial support does qualify as a 'link' even if obviously the US didn't know it was going to backfire. Those links between Iraq and Al Quaeda are extremely 'loose'.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 11:38am
Nazism was morally wrong, of course. But other countries didn't fight nazism while it was only within Germany. They fought Germany after it attacked other countries! And in the case of the US, it joined the fight really late in the game, after IT was attacked.

I happen to think that the world SHOULD have fought nazism as soon as their was evidence of severe abuses/killings (though not necessarily by attacking Germany). But I also believe that needs to be done by an international body. It would have been hard for Germany to sustain itself with the whole world against it and severe sanctions.

And I agree with you that a country has a right to defend itself, or when it is asked by another country to defend itself from an attack. But the US did not meet that definition in any way shape or form with Iraq. It was not attacked by Iraq, nor was it threatened to be attacked. The US government itself had stated foficially in 2001 that Iraq was 'No threat'. There still to this day no evidence that Iraq was any threat to americans or even closer neighbours. Defying an order from the UN is hardly something that Iraq was the first to do! The US itself has defied the UN many times refusing to 'allow its policies to be dictated by a foreign body'. I guess there's one set of rules for some countries, and then there's the big powerful countries that don't need to follow the rules they don't like. Like the Geneva convention...

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 1:17pm

Israel's actions are DEFENSIVE. They are protecting their citizens from TERRORISTS. They have learned the hard way that conciliation and negotiation don't work with people who want you wiped off the map, and given half the chance, would collaborate with the neighboring regimes to get the job done.


The poor Palestinians don't share the responsibility for the violence because they are not 'state sponsored'??? LOL! The terrorists are sponsored by

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 1:30pm

Excellent post! You're absolutely right.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 2:48pm

<<




>>


This isn't really a good example to use.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 2:53pm

The 911

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 3:00pm

International geopolitics is a highly nuanced complex matter. You're comparision would only be valid if ALL THINGS WERE EQUAL, and they are NOT. We do not turn a blind eye to SA's HR violations, and their country is not frozen in the status quo.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 8:29pm


We are currently pressuring SA for reforms, and it's working. But for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. Obviously we need Saudi Arabia and their oil, it would be nice if we could base all of our foreign policy decisions just on morals and exclude our own economic interests, but we can't, no country can. Economic and national security interests are inextricably linked. In any case, Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us, they are our ally, you may believe Iraq was not either, I disagree, and the rest of the world disagreed when they passed UN resolution 1441. That's why we haven't attacked SA, but we are using our influence and what political pressure we can muster to help effect change. As I said, it is not within the US's capabilities or any nation's for that matter to right all of the wrongs in the world. When we can and when it is in our national security and economic interest to do so, we do. That's reality, sorry if you don't like it, but we are certainly not the only nation whose foreign policy reflects our own national interests.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 8:35pm


There are NO established links between the government of Saudi Arabia and the attacks on 9/11-the fact that bin Laden was bon there means nothing-his citizenship was revoked and his family of whom so much is made disowned him.

< After all the US, France, Germany and others also helped Al Quaeda too, when it was fighting the Russian.>

Once again, irrelevant. Just because we helped them defend Afghanistan against communist foreign aggressors does not mean we ever encouraged, supported or helped them in the actions against us. Your argument is completely illogical on its face. Like I said, we fight oppression and aggression where and when we see it-we fought the Soviet aggression against Afghanistan, and we have every right to fight the radical fundamentalist Islamist aggression against our own nation. Your argument actually helps prove my point-they don't hate us because of what our foreign policy has done to them, in fact we actually helped them out big time in that area. They hate us because we believe in freedom of religion, women's rights, and democracy. As much as some might want to blame the US for the attack against us, the facts simply don't bear that theory out.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 2:45am
How is it working? What changes have occured in SA recently?

< We are currently pressuring SA for reforms, and it's working. But for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. Obviously we need Saudi Arabia and their oil, it would be nice if we could base all of our foreign policy decisions just on morals and exclude our own economic interests, but we can't, no country can. Economic and national security interests are inextricably linked. In any case, Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us, they are our ally, you may believe Iraq was not either, I disagree, and the rest of the world disagreed when they passed UN resolution 1441. That's why we haven't attacked SA, but we are using our influence and what political pressure we can muster to help effect change. >

Pages