Posted on 06/22/2004 11:16:50 PM PDT by neverdem
INTELLIGENCE INSIDER
WASHINGTON, June 22 — A new book by the senior Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden and his followers warns that the United States is losing the war against radical Islam and that the invasion of Iraq has only played into the enemy's hands.
In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.
The 309-page book, obtained by The New York Times, provides an unusual glimpse into a school of thought inside the C.I.A., and includes harsh criticism of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."
The author says the threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world.
It is rare for a C.I.A. officer to publish a book while still serving at the agency and highly unusual for the book to focus on such a politically explosive topic. Under C.I.A. rules, the book had to be cleared by the agency before it could be published. It was approved for release on condition that the author and his internal agency not be identified.
The book itself identifies "Anonymous" only as "a senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia." It identifies a previous book, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America," as being written by the same author.
Former intelligence officials identified the officer to The Times and noted that he was an overt employee of the C.I.A., but an intelligence official asked that his full name not be published because it could make him a target of Al Qaeda.
The senior intelligence official said the book had been vetted to insure that it not include classified information. "We still have freedom of speech," the official said. "It doesn't mean that we endorse the book, but employees are free to express their opinions."
In a report issued in March, the staff of the Sept. 11 commission described the bin Laden unit as a place where a "sense of alarm about bin Laden was not widely shared or understood within the intelligence and policy communities." Another new book, "Ghost Wars," by Steve Coll of The Washington Post, was based in part on interviews with the officer, identified by his first name, Mike.
Mr. Coll reported that the White House sometimes complained to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, that the officer was "too myopic" in his approach to manage the bin Laden group.
In the book, the author denounced the American invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes.
In warning that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, Anonymous writes: "In the period since 11 September, the United States has dealt lethal blows to Al Qaeda's leadership and — if official claims are true — have captured three thousand Al Qaeda foot soldiers." At the same time, he adds, "we have 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."
The bin Laden unit, or "station" in agency parlance, is part of the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center. It was established in 1996 at the agency's headquarters in Virginia as part of an organizational experiment that marked the first time the agency had dedicated a station to an individual instead of a country. A staff report issued by the Sept. 11 commission in March, based in part on extensive interviews with the former station chief, described leaders of the station as having been deeply frustrated when a plan to capture Mr. bin Laden in the spring of 1998 was not recommended by the C.I.A.'s leadership for approval by the White House.
The chief and other leaders of the the bin Laden station were transferred from it in mid-1999, according to the Sept. 11 commission report, after morale in the unit sagged and President Clinton was informed by his national security adviser that covert actions against Mr. bin Laden had not been fruitful.
In the book's preface, the author appears to direct criticism not only at policymakers but also at his superiors in the intelligence agencies, including Mr. Tenet, who fended off criticism after the attacks before announcing this month that he would resign on July 11.
The author expresses "a pressing certainty that Al Qaeda will attack the continental United States again, that its next strike will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001, and could include use of weapons of mass destruction."
"After the next attack," he adds, "misled Americans and their elected representatives will rightly demand the heads of intelligence-community leaders; that heads did not roll after 11 September is perhaps our most grievous post-attack error."
The only way we can lose the war on terrorism to to backtrack out of it. Terorists are here to stay for a long, long while, and President Bush was correct in his assessment of it being a very, very long war.
The way we'll lose is if the liberals win. Kerry wins; Al Qaeda wins. Get it?
The only other way we'll lose is if we are not aggressive enough because of our 'friends' (foreign and domestic) are crying for human rights for terrorists.
We are not fighting a war on "terrorism" any more than we were fighting a war on "surprise attacks" after Pearl Harbor. We are fighting a war with radical Islam and until we recognize this fact, we cannot win. We will simply be tilting at windmills.
I get it. I worked in the Bronx on Sep 11, 2001. I could eyeball the WTC without TV.
This is an absurd statement of the author. Take the Declaration if Independence as a basic statement of American values. What part of "Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness" is in any way compatable with Islam???
Well, just focusing on your specific question, we did not need bases in Saudi Arabia to maintain either no-fly zone. The Northern zone was maintained from bases in Turkey and the Southern zone could easily have been maintained from Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, or even from an aircraft carrier..
How long before the identity of the author is leaked?
You think radical Islam is at war with us because they hate the Declaration of Independence?
That's supposed to give him credibility?
Exactly. This "war on terrorism" phrase does not address who the enemy is.
Um, okay...
In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.
There's probably not too many 22 year vererans of the CIA who are still serving in a senior counterterrorism post, that also happened to head the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999. Half the Agency probably knows who this joker is, which means than 3/4s of the journalists in Washington do, too.
For the moment, it is in our best interest to leave things nebulous. Only 10-15% of the Muslim community is even slightly interested in taking up arms against us.
We need to battle these guys without waking up the other 85-90%. We are talking about a BILLION people here guys.
One of the missteps G.W. took in the first few days after 9-11 was to use the word "Crusade". He quickly backed away from that term. He knows what is going on.
bump
"In the book, the author denounced the American invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes."
---
And surely, he had more training in the entire set of strategic issues involved in the Middleast, and Arab and Moslem lands, than anyone in the White House.
Too bad that disgruntled plumbers can't write books and have something profitable to do for/during retirement. Or, bricklayers, etc....
I doubt his anonimity will last long. The buzz of this book is getting to be deafening, despite the fact that it is being published by a relatively obscure publisher.
For instance, "Anonymous" was recently interviewed by Spencer Ackerman for the liberal weblog, Talking Points Memo. This book has gotten a lot of coverage in other well-read weblogs, also.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_20.php#003082
No, there are many cultures in this world that are compatable with American values and democracy but Islamic culture is not one of them. It is no mistake that the only government in an Islamic state that has worked as a democracy is Turky where the Military guards a secular government.
Here is the money question. If he is so good, why isn't he still on the 'Bin Laden' post?
1999? Hmmm. Did Bush do a little house cleaning maybe? Disgruntled maybe?
"...the United States is losing the war against radical Islam..."
Hey, I thought this was a War on Terror?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.