Posted on 06/23/2004 10:09:03 AM PDT by bunkerhill7
US 'losing fight against terror' 11 September attack A devastating new attack is a "pressing certainty", the book says US policy in the "war on terror" is harshly criticised in a new book by an intelligence official who says the battle against al-Qaeda is being lost.
The author, identified as Anonymous, claims the invasion of Iraq has played into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and has not made America any safer.
He also predicts a new al-Qaeda strike within the US which will be far more damaging than the 11 September attacks. There has been no White House comment yet on the book due out on 4 July.
The 309-page Imperial Hubris is the latest book to attack the Bush administration in an election year - many written by former officials with an axe to grind.
But correspondents say this book is unprecedented as it is the work of an official with long years of counter-terrorism experience, who is still active in the US intelligence community.
Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy Guardian newspaper The fact that the authorities allowed the book's publication could reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken, comments Britain's Guardian newspaper, which says it has spoken to the author.
Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were among reasons advanced by the Bush administration for its invasion of Iraq - an operation the book brands as an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat".
'Failed half-wars'
The New York Times, which has obtained a copy of the book, says the author is a senior Central Intelligence Agency officer, who led a special unit to track Osama Bin Laden and his associates.
Osama Bin Laden Bin Laden: Not publicly sighted since 2001
"US leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the book says.
"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."
"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 3,000 al-Qaeda foot soldiers.
"At the same time, we have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-US sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of al-Qaeda and kindred groups."
"There is nothing that Bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq".
'Bush is best'
According to the Guardian, Anonymous thinks it possible that another devastating strike against the US could be staged during the election campaign. But, unlike with the Madrid train bombings, the aim would be to retain the administration rather than change it.
The paper says Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now", Anonymous is quoted as saying.
"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
The 11 September 2001 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network flew three hijacked planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with a fourth crashing in Pennsylvania.
Yep, nothing like refusing to buckle under to the enemy, making him afraid to show his face, and killing his followers, to play right into his hands. What on Earth were we thinking? </sarcasm
Well, a good reason for Bush to put his own man into the CIA. Obviously the Agency hhas "lost it."
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Obviously, John Paul would be Republican today.
The only solution to terror in our country is to first rid all elective ranks of Democrats.
Wow, in 2 1/2 years we haven't yet won a war against a worldwide enemy that Bush said would last for at least 10 years. I'm shocked!
"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."
And then he says this:
The paper says Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam
Just what we need - an intelligence analyst who can't make up his mind.
The fact that the authorities allowed the book's publication
Memo to the nitwits at the Guardian: The president of the United States does not have the power of censorship that your government has. Please try to do a bit of research before issuing pap such as this.
Anonymous? Why bother? Why not just put "Ted Kennedy" and give credit where it is due?
Lots has happened since the Church Committee emasculated the CIA in the mid 1970's.
The post-Church CIA was wrong about the USSR's collapse.
The post-Church CIA long argued for "stability" over democracy in Latin America, the Arab world, and the USSR. This was particularly true in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In fact, the CIA tried to embarrass anti-Communists in the USSR and Eastern Europe, preferring the "stability" of Gorbachev.
The geniuses at the CIA did little to stop bin Laden prior to 9/11.
I don't think any serious person would take the advice of a CIA individual, particularly a CIA individual too gutless to step forward and speak out publicly.
It's akin to taking advice on how to build an NBA champion from the owner of the Clippers.
And what a fine job he did.
In a truly "all out" confrontation with Islam, the result would be very brutal, very costly, but very predictable.
If we are losing the fight it's mainly because we are losing the will to fight. Thank the leftist media for that.
"The author, identified as Anonymous"
Didn't he write Primary Colors?
That is exactly the fdirection this is heading. My fear is that we don't have the stomach to fight that (holy) war.
Anonymous? Of course...it's another cowardly thug hiding behind a mask while attempting to sway public opinion and lessen America's resolve in fighting the war on terror. Just like the masked men who beheaded Berg/ Johnson/ Song-il.
I actually agree with a lot of this. Bush has painted himself into a corner by saying that it is not a battle against Islam, but just radical Islam. By mis- identifying the enemy, he really doesn't know who the enemy is. He will never get to the head by cutting off the fingers of Al Queda. Thefore, he is correct in the sense that that is where Bin Laden wanted it all along--a battle against the West versus Islam, or the so called 3rd Caliphate. 1st was the eventual destruction of the power of Roman Empire (achieved in 1126 a.d.) 2nd, the Turkish Ottoman Empire 1500's to 1900's total destruction of all of the remaining elements of the Roman Empire, and the 3rd, final destruction of the entire non-moslem world..Did Bush make a mistake? Most assuredly, but the same mistake that 99.99% of non-Muslims make--surely they can't all feel that way. Non radical muslims have the same desires as the Wahabi's, just not the same guts to do it. When is the last time that you saw or read where one muslim said he thought terrorism was wrong (and meant it, without personal gain.) I am a staunch supporter of the President, but on this issue has been blindsided, and still doesn't truly understand what he is up against.
Anonymous? Probably Bill or Hillary wrote it.
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.