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."
no to the 6 month thing
>>Tactically, is it to our advantage to say it so, even if true?
Three years after 911, yes, It's not tactical, now its strategic. When half the country doesn't understand the nature of the enemy, it needs to be done.
Whatever valid reasons were there 2-3 years ago to softpedal the Saudi role, they're gone now.
So right away we know how competent this guy is.
the author of the book says US leaders "refuse to accept the obvious". "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism
It's well enough to say that it's important for our leaders to grasp the nature of our enemy. It's idiotic to suggest (as this seems to) that it's a good idea for a President to come out and say publicly "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency". Yeah, that's genius strategy, right there: unite the entire Islamic world. Tell them straight out we see them as our enemy - or words which will be perceived as such.
I prefer the "boiling the frog" strategy myself. You don't tell the frog of your plan to put him in a pot of water and boil him before you do it.
and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces," he said.
If he thinks that success in this war is measured by body counts then he's an idiot. As things stand our body count ratio is just terrific, but to really make a "dent" in "enemy forces" we'd presumably have to kill millions. That's what this guy wants? That's what we're trying to avoid having to do.
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.
Of course. Terrorism is a geopolitical lever used by Islamic dictators from their position of weakness. Suicidal to attack the US directly, so funnel attacks through third-party "terror groups". Even I get that.
What I don't get is why this Anonymous thinks that it would be a good idea for the President to come out and say all that publicly. Yes of course "they hate us for our freedoms" is simplistic nonsense but do we *really* want Bush saying "they hate us because they don't want us doing X Y Z", thus sparking a self-defeating, angst-ridden domestic debate with the "let's stop doing X Y Z" faction?
The book denounces the US occupation of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war
Didn't know Michael Moore was a spook... live and learn.
"avaricious" makes no sense. "premeditated"? of course (duh). "unprovoked" makes it seem like our relations with Iraq for the last ten years have been totally normal. No ceasefire, no firing on our planes, no assassination attempt, no Al Qaeda links, nope. We & Iraq have been like two peas in a pod. How stupid is this guy?
against a foe who posed no immediate threat,"
Yup, obviously we should've waited till they became an immediate threat. More strategic genius on display here, that same genius that proved so helpful in nabbing Bin Laden.
and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which bin Laden and his followers draw.
The logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning is that the best strategy is to minimize "fueling" anti-American sentiments, by doing whatever bin Laden demands. Then we'll have peace in our time!
"There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," the author writes.
That's because bin Laden is (well, was) a millenial fantasist. Marx knew that class conflict would lead inevitably to socialism which would lead inevitably to world communism, and Bin Laden knew that if the US were to occupy Iraq this would unite the Muslim World together in a fit of white hot rage and they would Rise Up and wipe the United States off the face of the earth with a hundred million suicide bombs....
"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."
And meanwhile our troops occupy both places. Putting them in a convenient position to fight people in those "fertile grounds".
This is a great deal better than impotently tasking CIA nerds with "tracking" such people in fertile grounds from afar.
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."
I don't doubt AQ will attack again, or try. That is a lame metric of anything. I'd hope that such horrors will be prevented, but knowing that it's morons like Anonymous who we have on the case, does not inspire confidence.
Naming the enemy is sometimes something better done in private. Stating publicly that we consider 1/6 of the world to be our enemy (or saying words which will be perceived that way) is of dubious strategic value.
More importantly, it is not to our advantage strategically to say so, even if true.
Save mne that propaganda about 1.6 of the world.
We're talking about wahab islam, predominantly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Clarity, my friend, clarity. don't muddy the waters.
Naming wahabs as the enemy would endear us to the non wahabs and they would be with us.
Right now, it's islam, as if it;s one flavor. it's not.
And the state we have supported thru oil and defence is the one gunning for us.
Failure to name the enemy is creating the mess we're in.
Muslims are smarter than you think. You think the Afghanis or many muslim women don't recognise the Saudi influence when they see it.
Our current strategy hurts us more than the islamis.
But believe what you want.
This idiot was on with Dan Blather tonight. I missed the exact terminology but they mentioned that he was something like the head of the group going after Osama bin Laden.
My question to him would be just what in the hell he did to get Osama.
Unfortunately, most Americans are oblivious. They don't realize that members of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc., are just government workers, just like the postal workers, IRS employees, Social Security employees, etc.. They sit on their asses, collect great salaries and retire with an inflation indexed pension - and don't rock the boat.
There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
The country will not be "on track with" a President who declares outright that radical Islam is our enemy. That is just a political reality.
let the enemy know you won't be fooled
Sometimes it can be helpful to let the enemy think we will be fooled. Leads to slipups...
Example: By some accounts, Saddam Hussein seems to have honestly thought that he had a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding invasion via UN diplomacy....
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.
By all means, tell us your strategy to win decisively and effectively so that we will not be asking kids and grandkids to fight a multigenerational war.
I'd really like to believe in such a possibility.
Of course, it would necessitate sacrifice on the part of citizens - higher gas prices, etc.
Higher gas prices would be nothing if that's all it were.
I know we are and you know we are, but you and I also both know how such words would be perceived. Yes, you're right that it is propaganda. Effective propaganda.
Clarity, my friend, clarity. don't muddy the waters.
"A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective." ... "When you are going to attack nearby, make it look as if you are going to go a long way; when you are going to attack far away, make it look as if you are going just a short distance." -Sun Tzu
Naming wahabs as the enemy would endear us to the non wahabs and they would be with us.
Give examples of non wahabs who you think would be pleased to help us fight wahabs.
Muslims are smarter than you think.
Not the ones I have in mind. How many Muslims, do you reckon, believe in the "Protocols"?
>>That is just a political reality.
We're supposedly in a damn war and we're going to subordinate military aims for politics.
Why the hell are we so scared of the islamis,
Wow! Good thing FDR and CHurchill weren't so limp wristed.
My strategy. Declare war on Saudi for starters, stop the flow of monies.
And treat Afganistan/Pakistan as one entity.
There are too many connections to 911 from these countries for which they have not been called to task.
But i;m sure you won't agree and come up with all kinds of reasons not to.
But, place politics front and center. What a weird war. Can't name the enemy, not enough guts to identify nation states that attacked us.
>>Give examples of non wahabs who you think would be pleased to help us fight wahabs
Read my damn post. I just did. Algerians, for one.
But don't regurgitate administration propaganda to me.
It's too nauseating.
>>Higher gas prices would be nothing if that's all it were.
NO it;s because Bush is in bed with the Saudis and places their interestss before those of Americans.
And he's led suckers like down the garden path.
Abu Dubya Al Saud Al Bush is good. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.
JOBONE: At all costs, protect the Saudi gravy train.
You can have him.
Islam in general has to be approached obliquely. We hit radical islam directly. I suspect most of islam is like most of christianity in that the everyday muslim is as committed as the everyday christian. If the snake handlers and 'god hates fags' crowd become troublesome, it wouldn't be accurate to say that christianity is the problem. I can co-exist with islam but I can't co-exist with radical islam.
This CIA guy is completely wrong to assert that “we have waged two failed half-wars”. That statement alone sets him up as an idiot and falls into the ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’ category. He’s completely worth ignoring.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1242639,00.html
This is apparently the second book in recent years by the same "Anonymous".
Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.
"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.
The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.
But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."
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.
He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
See June 21 1:10 a.m. entry especially.
This site has been covering this guy. He sounds like a whacked out paleocon. Even claims we're supporting India against its muslim militants, rants about Israel, etc., but then says we should act like General Sherman and mow down the countries where AQ is.
Anonymous' strategy in a nutshell:
1. Cast the Israelis adrift.
2. Nuke Mecca (and Medina and Cairo and Karachi and Damascus and Algiers and Djakarta, etc. plus all the villages and Beduoin tents in between).
3. Retreat into Fortress America and pull up the drawbridge.
4. Did I mention abandoning Israel?
Yup. Whacked out paleo...
I hear this crap all the time from people on the far-left and the far-right, saying that Bush has "fallen into Bin Laden's trap."
If Bin Laden is so damn happy with the way things are going, how come he never shows his ugly face anywhere?
Answer, because he's a chickenshit and doesn't want to be captured or killed, because he's in a deep coma, or because he's as dead as Elvis.
And after the great job CIA did of warning us of 9/11, I would following all of their analysis to a "T"...
...not.
Smells like preemption, perhaps getting out ahead of the final 911 report?
Nobody's suggesting we subordinate military aims for politics. The military aims remain the same no matter what Bush "says".
As for subordinating motivational rhetoric to politics, that is necessary in a democracy. Poorly constructed rhetoric which is tone-deaf politically, just risks the public withdrawing support, changing leaders, etc. In other words it will lead the public (which is ultimately in control of all military objectives) to alter those objectives. Not a likely path to victory.
Why the hell are we so scared of the islamis,
Who is?
I just want to fight them serially rather than in parallel. That works better for us.
My strategy. Declare war on Saudi for starters, stop the flow of monies.
And lead to world depression..?
On a practical level, which faction of the split, in-fighting Saudi "government" shall we declare war on? They're basically fighting a civil war with each other right now. Shall we take them both on?
And treat Afganistan/Pakistan as one entity.
ok
Meaning what? invasion/occupation of nuclear-armed Pakistan? With what objective? Put a Musharaff-style leader in place there? oh wait....
There are too many connections to 911 from these countries for which they have not been called to task. But i;m sure you won't agree and come up with all kinds of reasons not to.
I agree it's unsatisfying not to "call to task" these people. But as you can see there are actually pretty good reasons not to invade Pakistan, Saudi, etc. No matter how good it might feel emotionally. We must deal with them in a way that makes sense rather than in a way that makes us feel good.
But, place politics front and center. What a weird war.
Again, we are what is known as a "democracy". Politics ultimately control the military objective, thus correct politics are crucial to winning the war. Saddam Hussein had the benefit of being a dictator and not having to care about politics; Bush doesn't. It's a dubious benefit anyway, you can see how well dictated-armies fight....
Can't name the enemy,
We could name the enemy if we felt like, I just don't think it suits our purposes. Why do it? Like giving away troop movements.
not enough guts to identify nation states that attacked us.
If you're suggesting that the "nation states" of Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia attacked us, I think the situation is far more complicated. It's not even true to say that the nation-state of Afghanistan attacked us. For Bush to say these things would just be scoffed at and disbelieved. Rightly so, I think.
[Muslims who you think would help us if Bush said we're fighting Wahabbis] Algerians, for one.
I'm looking here and I don't see "Algeria" anywhere. But that tells me that Algeria did not help us in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, against the Taliban & Al Qaeda safe havens.
Why not????
You would have thought that if Algeria was so gung-ho about fightin' Wahabbis with us, Afghanistan would've been a no-brainer. Sorry, they failed my test case.
But don't regurgitate administration propaganda to me.
WTH are you talking about. I've never heard "the administration" say most of this stuff, if any. For all I know they have no idea what they're doing and my rationale does not apply.
NO it;s because Bush is in bed with the Saudis and places their interestss before those of Americans.
It's in the interests of Americans to occupy Mecca, in the meanwhile sparking a global depression?
Hard to see how.
You want to occupy Mecca? I want nowhere near that stinking cult center.
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.