Posted on 11/17/2004 10:59:58 AM PST by Howlin
One of the Central Intelligence Agency's foremost experts on Osama bin Laden has stepped out of the shadows and joined the public debate over past mistakes and future strategy in the war on terror.
Michael Scheuer is the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996. He's also been at the center of a battle between the CIA and the White House over Mideast policy and the war on terror.
What is new for Scheuer - who resigned from the intelligence agency on Friday after 22 years - is commenting by name. This summer, he authored a book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," under the pen name Anonymous.
The book, written with the CIA's blessing, is critical of the Bush administration's counterterrorism policy, and was viewed by some at the White House as a thinly veiled attempt by the CIA to undermine the president's reelection.
In his first television interview, Scheuer talked to Correspondent Steve Kroft about his frustrations in the war on terror and his assessment of bin Laden's plans - including the al Qaeda founder's interest in nuclear weapons.
Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer spoke to 60 Minutes in his first television interview out of the shadows.
After a 22-year career as a spy charged with keeping secrets, Scheuer decided it was more important to join the public debate on how to best attack Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
"His genius lies in his ability to isolate a few American policies that are widely hated across the Muslim world. And that growing hatred is going to yield growing violence," says Scheuer. "Our leaders continue to say that we're making strong headway against this problem. And I think we are not."
In 1996, at a time when little was known about the wealthy Saudi, other than he was suspected of financing terrorism, Scheuer was assigned to create a bin Laden desk at the CIA.
"The uniqueness of the unit was more or less that it was focused on a single individual. It was really the first time the agency had done that sort of effort," says Scheuer.
Did he try to figure out where bin Laden was? "Where he was, where his cells were, where his logistical channels were," says Scheuer. "How he communicated. Who his allies were. Who donated to them... I think it's fair to say the entire range of sources were brought to bear."
Codenamed "Alec," the unit was originally made up of about a dozen agents. And in less than a year, they discovered that bin Laden was more than some wealthy Saudi throwing his money around - and that his organization, known as al Qaeda, was not a Muslim charity.
"We had found that he and al Qaeda were involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In this case, nuclear material, so by the end of 1996, it was clear that this was an organization unlike any other one we had ever seen," says Scheuer.
Scheuer says his bosses at the CIA were initially skeptical of that information. And that was just the beginning of his frustrations.
In a letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees earlier this year, Scheuer says his agents provided the U.S. government with about ten opportunities to capture bin Laden before Sept. 11, and that all of them were rejected.
One of the last proposals, which he described to the 9/11 Commission in a closed-door session, involved a cruise missile attack against a remote hunting camp in the Afghan desert, where bin Laden was believed to be socializing with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates.
Scheuer wanted to level the entire camp. "The world is lousy with Arab princes," says Scheuer. "And if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book."
"You couldn't have done this without killing an Arab prince," asks Kroft.
"Probably not. Sister Virginia used to say, 'You'll be known by the company you keep.' That if those princes were out there eating goat with Osama bin Laden, then maybe they were there for nefarious reasons. But nonetheless, they would have been the price of battle."
And that doesn't bother him? "Not a lick," says Scheuer.
"My understanding is you had a reputation within the CIA as being fairly obsessive about this subject," says Kroft. "I dislike obsessive," says Scheuer. "I think hard-headed about it."
Whatever you call it, in 1999, three years after he started the bin Laden unit, Scheuer's candor got him into trouble with his supervisors at the CIA. What were the circumstances under which he left the bin Laden unit?
"I think I became too insistent that we were not pursuing this target with enough vigor and with enough risk-taking - - an unwillingness to take risks," says Scheuer. "I got relieved of the position I was in. I had a lovely sojourn in the library and then had other sojourns since."
His exile ended shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, when he was brought back to the bin Laden unit as a special adviser. But by then, everything had changed.
His nemesis had gone underground, and the United States was on its way to invading Afghanistan and Iraq - creating, Scheuer says, the perception in the minds of 1.3 billion Muslims that America had gone to war against Islam.
"The war in Iraq - if Osama was a Christian - it's the Christmas present he never would have expected," says Scheuer.
Right or wrong, he says Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.
"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area," says Scheuer. "And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."
Is he talking about appeasement?
"I'm not talking about appeasement. There's no way out of this war at the moment," says Scheuer. "It's not a choice between war and peace. It's a choice between war and endless war. It's not appeasement. I think it's better even to call it American self-interest."
Scheuer believes that al Qaeda is no longer just a terrorist organization that can be defeated by killing or capturing its leaders. Now, he says it's a global insurgency that's spreading revolutionary fervor throughout the Muslim world.
"Bin Laden's still at large. His most recent speech, I think, demonstrates that he's not running rock to rock, cave to cave. We are tangled in a very significant Islamic insurgency in Iraq," says Scheuer.
"Most dramatically, and perhaps least noticed, is the violence inside Saudi Arabia itself. Saudi Arabia was, until just a few years ago, probably one of the most safe countries on earth. And now the paper is daily full of activities and shootouts between Islamists who supported Osama bin Laden and the government there."
But if bin Laden is much stronger than he was, why haven't there been more attacks on the United States?
"One of the great intellectual failures of the American intelligence community, and especially the counterterrorism community, is to assume if someone hasn't attacked us, it's because he can't or because we've defeated him," says Scheuer. "Bin Laden has consistently shown himself to be immune to outside pressure. When he wants to do something, he does it on his own schedule."
"You've written no one should be surprised when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States," says Kroft. "You believe that's going to happen?"
"I don't believe in inevitability. But I think it's pretty close to being inevitable," says Scheuer.
A nuclear weapon? "A nuclear weapon of some dimension, whether it's actually a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb, or some kind of radiological device," says Scheuer. "Yes, I think it's probably a near thing."
What evidence is there that bin Laden's actually working to do this? "He's told us it. Bin Laden is remarkably eager for Americans to know why he doesn't like us, what he intends to do about it and then following up and doing something about it in terms of military actions," says Scheuer. "He's told us that, 'We are going to acquire a weapon of mass destruction, and if we acquire it, we will use it.'"
After Sept. 11, Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by Muslim clerics for launching such a serious attack without sufficient warning. That has now been given. And he says bin Laden has even obtained a fatwa, or Islamic decree, justifying a nuclear attack against the United States on religious grounds.
"He secured from a Saudi sheik named Hamid bin Fahd a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans. Specifically, nuclear weapons," says Scheuer. "And the treatise found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans."
Scheuer says the fatwa was issued in May 2003, "and that's another thing that doesn't come to the attention of the American people."
Despite this threat, Scheuer insists the CIA doesn't have nearly enough trained analysts working on the Osama bin Laden unit today. At a time when Congress is considering revolutionary changes in the way the intelligence community is organized, Scheuer sees no major problems with the CIA or the product it produces.
He blames Sept. 11 on poor leadership from people like former CIA Director George Tenet, his chief deputy, Jim Pavitt, and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who were invited, but declined, to appear on Sunday's 60 Minutes.
"Richard Clarke has said that you're really sort of a hothead, a middle manager who really didn't go to any of the cabinet meetings in which important things were discussed, and that basically you were just uninformed," says Kroft.
"I certainly agree with the fact that I didn't go to the cabinet meetings. But I'm certainly also aware that I'm much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available again Osama bin Laden and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet," says Scheuer.
"I think Mr. Clarke had a tendency to interfere too much with the activities of the CIA, and our leadership at the senior level let him interfere too much," says Scheuer. "So criticism from him I kind of wear as a badge of honor."
Is there anything about bin Laden that Americans don't know, but should? "Yeah, I think there is. I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice in continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster, as a degenerate personality, as some kind of abhorrent individual," says Scheuer.
"He surely does reprehensible activities, and we should surely take care of that by killing him as soon as we can. But he's not an irrational man. He's a very worthy enemy. He's an enemy to worry about."
"You wrote in your book that he's a great man," says Kroft.
"Yes, certainly a man, without the connotation good or bad, he's a great man in the sense that he's influenced the course of history," says Scheuer.
Does he respect bin Laden? "Until we respect him, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary," says Scheuer.
When they talk of Clinton they call it the U.S.Government, when they talk of Bush they call it the Bush Administration. He said it so many times I almost kicked the TV. Didn't say "Clinton" one time.
"as evidenced by Operation Anaconda, demonstrating the value of After Action Reviews."
Which did not work any better than the Tora Bora operation.
Can you let me in on your secret battle plan?
"Can you let me in on your secret battle plan?"
Kerry is the one with the secret plans.
We had troops in Saudi Arabia decades before Saddam became a problem.
I hear we started putting troops in Saudi Arabia around 40 years ago--as part of the deal we made with the Saudi Royal family: to protect the Royals from being overthrown.
The info is out there. It isn't hard to find. Just Google it up: http://www.google.com/
Everything,that this bloody Quisling,Sheuer,is complaing about,happened during SLICK WILLIE'S WATCH! He flip flops as badly as Kerry...flipping from appease at all cost,to flop,NUKE 'EM ALL. Neither "plan" is tenable nor workable.
And ignoring/leaving out the fact that OBL was offered to Clinton,on a silver platter,at least THREE times,is unconcionables!
The world ignore Hitler's early wee adventure,assuming incorrectly,that he'd stop after gobbling up a few countries,that most other nations didn't give a damn about. So now,NOW, we should have given in to OBL and allow the destruction of Israel,his take over of ALL Muslim
nations,imagining,INCORRECTLY,that his complete intent and purposes aren't really TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD,making it one Islamonazi caliphate?
You really don't understand any of this!
I do not know the answer.
But the problem of terrorism and WMD's is serious enough, that we must entertain all suggestions, most especially when suggested by people well acquainted with the problem.
You points are obvious enough.
We should ask anyone who may suggest such a solution, their answer to your points, so we may weigh both sides.
Would such a Caliphate may be more dangerous than Russia under Stalin, a country we were also told that wanted to take over thw world?
Have fun.
I think if you listen to more of what he has to say, he brings that up. You can hear a 45 minute interview he gave in August when he was still anonymous, here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/07/20040721_b_main.asp
I've read the article.I've read other threads which have more of his words on them.The man is just another worthless,inept jerk,whose tenure in the CIA was a complete waste of MY tax dollars.Now,he's out there trying to sell his book.
I think that you are far too open minded! And you DO know what is said about that state of being...don't you? ;^)
Stalin was a pussycat,compared to the Islamonazis;benevolent even.
And no,HELL NO,listening to any and all suggestions,is NOT a "good" idea,since this man's suggestion are either off the charts,at each end of the spectrum;either give in to EVERYTHING OBL wants,or just NUKE indiscriminately.This man is not an "expect",who has carefully considered everything and then come up with serious plans.He's an idiot of gigantic proportions,with nothing of value to suggest.
I don't have a problem with any of his following statements:
19:27
What I'm concerned with is much less what muslims think... I only care in the sense that if we understand what they think we're better able to focus and draft a policy that would defeat them.
29:48
We've gone through now 2 nationals commissions, the Shelby Goss commission and now the 9-11 commission and we've heard very powerful senior leaders, whether it was the DCI, two Secretaries of State, Mr. Clark from the NSC, go before these committees and say "Well, we had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden, but the evidence wasn't good enough. Or, we might have killed an arab prince. Or, we might have hit a mosque with shrapnel and made muslims mad at us." And it's been astounding to me, and I've participated in both investigations, that none of the congressmen or senators, none of the members of the McCain commission, ever said: "Mr. Director, why didn't you err on the side of protecting the American people? Why were you always more concerned with the opinion of the europeans, the possible loss of an arab prince, of which the world is flush, or of offending muslims by hitting a mosque with a piece of shrapnel?" The dearth of people willing to take a chance to defend America, and American citizens, is a stunning situation to find ourselves in.
32:30
We're facing an enemy that's talented, experienced, extremely well organized, and doesn't wear uniforms. And as long as we're forced to pursue this war through only the military means, if we're going to defend America, we're going to have to kill a lot more people than we've done so far.
42:06
I don't see how you can combat a problem, win a war, unless you realize really what the enemy is up to and what he's about, and what motivates him. As long as we cling to these ideas that they're criminals and we can settle the issue with primarily the use of law enforcement in the court, and a very moderate application of military power, I see no reason for hope. I use an epigram there from Lincoln after the battle of Antietam where he said: "These people just don't realize we're in a bloody war and it's going to have to be fought out to the end", and that's about where we are.
I doubt many right thinking individuals would. Where the problem appears to lie is in his criticism that, even though we had been under attack by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for over 7 years, no contingency existed to extirpate him from the face of the earth immediately after 9-11, indicating a lack of concern on the part of the Government as to this particular threat.
And for this vile outrage, the Fatwas have been issued: He must necessarily be placed in his hole in the ground, covered up to his chest, and pay for his sin under a hail of rock and stone.
I'd feel pretty bad about that, but given his comments as to who Osama actually fears, I guess I can live with it.
I'd feel pretty bad about that, but given his comments as to who Osama actually fears, I guess I can live with it.
I am not 100% sure I understand what you are saying.
Please rephrase by using names so that I will understand whom you mean when you say "he" and "his".
Also, what it you mean by outrage: the lack of concern on the part of the Government or 911? Thanks.
For criticizing the Bush administration for being caught flat footed on 9-11, Scheuer is being pilloried by Republicans - the validity of his this, or any of his other criticism notwithstanding.
Scheuer goes on to say that Osama only really fears the Marines. And as an Army vet, I take exception to this.
I think I'll answer my own questoin: "Would such a Caliphate may be more dangerous than Russia under Stalin, a country we were also told that wanted to take over thw world?"
First off, Bin Laden is nuts. He is nuts in the same way that mass murderers are nutx.
For whatever reason bin Laden is angry at the world over feelings of his personal inadequacy.
So he has a strong desire to kill people, apparently especially Americans.
But before he kills, he needs to justify his need to kill.
He is using religion as his rationalization for killing.
Had his object been what he professes: that Americans withdraw troops and leave the Mideast alone--he should have attacked the Twin Towers on a weekend, followed by an announcement that he did so to minimize loss of life.
Instead, he chose to perform the act in the most murderous way possible. A way, that he must have known deep down, was such an act of madness that America could not and would not make deals with him.
And more recently he comes out with that tape, which apparently offers a deal--but again, he's just fooling himself: deep inside he must know that after 911 we won't deal.
And so he sets himself up with his next rationalization; He'll think to himself that he was a good sport by warning us, and because we didn't listen, now we deserve whatever he's been planning.
But on the other hand--I wonder if we did abandon all involvement in the Mideast, leaving bin laden and all factions to their own devices: would bin Laden survive the internecine battles? Is someone like Bin Laden--who fools himself--clever enough to outsmart rivals and then organize a state--a caliphate? Or is bin Laden's only talent, terrorism?
Might the task be outside bin Laden's abilities? Might someone else--another Arab--outsmart bin Laden and emerge in control: perhaps an Arab Stalin? Someone less crazy, someone who can be deterred by our ICBM's?
Nothing whatsoever,in that mind numbing post of yours,is logical,makes sense,or is well reasoned.
Odds are the kind of man who wins such a fight is not going to be a religious nut idealist who decieves himself.
The winner would more likely be someone with a taste for being corrupted by worldly things, and so capable of being bought.
Unfortunately, we can't stand aside to let nature take its course, because it would interrupt the oil supply.
Stalin sent tens of millions of Russians ("his own people"[!]) to their deaths.
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.