Posted on 06/23/2004 3:31:55 PM PDT by jpl
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A book by an anonymous CIA (news - web sites) official titled "Imperial Hubris," describes Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) as two "failed half-wars" that have played into the enemy's hands and complicated the war on terrorism, reports said.
The 309-page book was written by a still serving Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) officer who from 1996 to 1999 headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and who, in the book, is identified only as Anonymous, said the New York Times which obtained a copy of the book.
In a highly unusual move allowing the publication of a book on a politically explosive topic, the CIA vetted the book to ensure it included no classified information, and a CIA official asked the daily not to reveal the identity of its author -- a former CIA official identified him -- because he could become a target of bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, the daily said.
In criticism directed both at US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and his predecessor Bill Clinton (news - web sites), the author of the book says US leaders "refuse to accept the obvious".
"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," he said.
He said the threat from radical Islam is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world.
The book denounces the US occupation 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 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," the author 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 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-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups."
Anonymous said he has "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."
Yay! It's by "anonymous!!!" That means it could be ANYBODY writing this book - not even an "officer with the CIA"...
So how is anyone supposed to be able to verify any information in this book? Who will vouch for the author's claims that he/she REALLY is a "CIA officer" and not just some Walter Mitty Democrat shill with a chip on their shoulder?
Not only is "Anonymous" overly vitriolic, he/she is also quite stupid.
I agree, and just how is anyone suppose to determine the credibility of the book, when the author is anonymous. This is unbelievably treasonous. I thought CIA people had to take lie detector test every 6 months. Obviously, they have missed a few ivans.
And, well, failed miserably....
A faction within the govt. keeps talking about "international cooperation and alliances" which seems to be a code word for paying off France.
"He said the threat from radical Islam is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world.
The book denounces the US occupation 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 bin Laden and his followers draw.
Well, this is an example of the Joseph Wilson-esque spinning I sensed before ie, the rehashing of the "immediate threat" pre-war talking point to keep Saddam "contained", in power, and OPEC and France happy.
And, if one reads Anonymous' first book, he does say it's American values that are part of the Islamist's fears, and the author approvingly cites Samuel Huntington "clash of cultures" analysis. So given these short statements, this agent's been "turned."
given the secretive factional fighting played out in the press and in books, Bush might have lost some people a lot of money, which they think they can recoup by installing Kerry.
that is a very good point!
The CIA fears that anonymous could become a target of al quaeda??
Seems they would rather enjoy the message of this, I should think.
Such garbage. The left is hitting the panic button, clutching at straws.
In other words guys you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that Afghanistan, for example, is worse off than before we kicked out Osama and the taliban.
Good point, that lept out at me also.
A book by an anonymous CIA - that makes no sense!
Why are they doing things like this. CIA is a good agency, if my...did something like this it would be shot.
Mitchell tried out some PC questions that the CIA mgr. brushed aside and said, "We need to error on the side of safety."
Just before his darkened interview, the report said he was called a crank, by the CIA, in 1996 for calling bin laden a threat.
This story is getting an antiBush media spin from someone who may have it right.
Well, it was Clinton's watch, so this was probably a Clinton croney. Friend of Valerie Plame, I wonder?
Not only that, but Afghanistan and Iraq were seething with antu-American passion before we went there. Does this pissant think it would not have been a "pressing certainty" we will be attacked in the continental US again, if we do nothing? What would this idiot have done, NOTHING???
No wonder our CIA is weak. It is the problem, not the solution
We should be in a war with radical islam not terrorists.
Naing an ideology is essential to identifying the enemy before defeating it.
Makes more than sense than the current emphasis on a tactic.
We are fighting Wahabi Islam. So as the Family Saud is the financial backers of Wahabism we in effect we are fighting Saudi Arabia by proxy.
Yep, it's the spin on the book, same impression in the Guardian article.
I also think it's the book's expectation by using the term "Imperial Hubris" a term maybe invented by Gore Vidal, and spouted off by some in the Kerry camp. I assumed, like I assume others did, that it fits into the anti-American, blame America first construct.
Anonymous' first book uses "imperial hubris" in a different way - he uses it as the assumption that others think like us or only act in reaction to what some think are our wrongs. I wouldn't use that term, but basically he means a way of understanding the world that is Western- or American-centric.
Tactically, is it to our advantage to say it so, even if true?
YES< ABSOLUTELY. Keep the country on track with war goals, let the enemy know you won't be fooled and act as an impetus to define a strategy to win decisively and effectively instead of the current situation where we will be asking kids and grandkids to fight a multigenerational war.
Of course, it would necessitate sacrifice on the part of citizens - higher gas prices, etc.
Clarity is paramount. Tactically, strategically.
All of these kind of books have become a joke. This war has hardly begun and yet books are coming out that the war has been lost. I wonder when this writer actually began his book. He obviously had his thesis set and knew what the publisher wanted him to write. If it is too early to write a book that the war on terror has been won, then why isn't it too early to write that the war has been lost?
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.