Scheuer's Hubris

GeoPoliticalReview ^

[Afghanistanmation]

As expected, former CIA Senior intelligence analyst Michael Scheuer has been making the rounds on political talk shows explaining his dissatisfaction with the U.S. government's policies vis-à-vis the War on Terror, as outlined in his best-selling book Imperial Hubris. Normally we would dismiss clichéd assertions such as Mr. Scheuer's, but his allegations and comments deserve attention as his championing by the MSM elevates him to a position of profound influence among the public.

Putting aside Mr. Scheuer's admiration and praise for Osama bin Laden stated two Saturday's ago on Meet the Press (you can read them for yourself in the transcript and try picturing your grandfather making similar comments about Adolf Hitler or Tojo), he believes that the American government has failed to adequately acknowledge the motivation of Al Qaeda. In his words, that motivation is "grounded so thoroughly in their religion and their perception that American policies are a threat to annihilate that religion." We agree with his first assessment that Al Qaeda's assault against the West is grounded in religion. There is no question about that, and the U.S. government has done a poor job of explaining that notion to the public, although we believe most of American understands the nature of the enemy.

However, Mr. Scheuer's willingness to recite Islamofascist propaganda (i.e. the hackneyed belief that Al Qaeda's aggression is a result of U.S. policies that target Islam) illustrates his misguided perspective. His reasoning fails on every level and is ridiculous and impossible to reconcile in lieu of the U.S. led liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, and the war waged against Slobodan Milosevic to save Muslims in Albania. Furthermore, when you evaluate the Jihadist's rhetoric (examples 1, 2, 3), you begin to understand their true motive, which is nothing short of the restoration of a Muslim caliphate in the holy land; i.e. a mythical kingdom where Muslim domination is restored over the world and Sharia is the law of the land.

Scheuer also isolated six items that Bin Laden routinely cites as motivation for his aggression:

Our unqualified support for Israel is one. Our ability to keep oil prices low, enough for Western consumers, is another. Our presence on the Arabian peninsula certainly is another. Our military presence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in the Philippines, in other Muslim countries is a fourth. Our support for governments that are widely viewed as suppressing Muslims--Russia and Chechnya, for example, the Indians in Kashmir, the Chinese in Western China. But perhaps most of all, our policy of supporting what bin Laden and I think much of the Muslim world regards as tyrannical governments from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, whether it's the Al Sauds, the Kuwaitis, the Egyptian government, the Algerian government.

The last point is the one that interests us the most because it illustrates the hypocrisy of Bin Laden, his true goal, and Scheuer's gullibility. For Bin Laden to be angry about U.S. support for despotic regimes in the Islamic world is the penultimate of duplicity. He is after all the man who used the Taliban, probably second only to North Korea for ruthlessness and despotism, as his guardian and state-sponsor while he trained Jihadists for his fight against the infidels. Yet, for some reason, Bin Laden had no quarrel with that regime. Why is that? Again, if you cut through the propaganda and read the Jihadist rhetoric, the answer is simple: the Taliban resembled the ideal form of "government" Bin Laden would like imposed upon his fellow Muslims and the notorious "infidels." At the very least he used them as an end to his means, similar to the West's support of the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But Scheuer's failure to notice this contradiction shows us that he is either incredibly incompetent or simply pandering. The latter prospect is a perfect seaway into the greatest insight into Scheuer's motive (and character) for his current outspokenness on the topic of the War on Terror.

Towards the end of his interview on Meet the Press, Russert asked Scheuer about an apparent contradiction regarding his view of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Here is an excerpt of Russert's comments:

Russert: You've talked about Iraq being a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, that you said the invasion of Iraq was not a pre-emption, it was an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat. But I want to bring you to an interview you had on Tuesday on "Hardball" where you said, "The only part of [the case for the war in Iraq] that I know about is that I happened to do the research on links between al Qaeda and Iraq." Question: "And what did you come up with?" Scheuer: "Nothing."

If you go back and read your first book, "Through Enemies' Eyes," you seem to lay out a pretty strong case of connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Let me show you page 190: "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq."

This week's new Weekly Standard lays out this one: "There's information showing that in '93-94, bin Laden began" working "with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] capability."

And this: "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons ... and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden."

We omitted Scheuer's response to the question on the basis that his explanation was grossly inadequate. However, we encourage you to read it on your own in the transcript and be the final judge. Nevertheless, it should not be surprising that Scheuer suddenly cannot see a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, similar to a fellow revisionist, Richard Clarke. As with Clarke, we assume Scheuer's motive for revising his previous assertion of a link was to make a quick buck feeding the left's hatred for Bush. And doing so required following the left-wing mantra of "No Al Qaeda-Iraq connection," despite years of evidence pre-dating President Bush that contradicts this novel belief.

One final note. The Defense Science Board has released a report that concludes "that the [U.S.] government must urgently change its approach to understanding and communicating with the Muslim world." Our colleague over at American Pundit took this conclusion as a validation of the Scheuer viewpoint and a rejection of the Bush "they hate our freedom" principle. Even absent the obvious distinction between the terrorists and "regular" Muslims, this interpretation is still not the case. The problem, as this study even says, is not United States policy, rather, as Thomas Friedman often discusses, it is the failure of the U.S. government to combat the massive amount of propaganda emanating from authoritarian regimes and their surrogates disguised as news outlets. If U.S. policies were presented in their proper context, absent the heavy doses of anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism, and used some of the examples we referenced above, this false hatred would be curtailed. Exposure to only one side of a story is bound to influence your viewpoint, and you need to look no further than some in the United States, or to the many across the Atlantic in Europe.

[Mad Mammoth]

So the BIG question remaining for the many tabloids to start working on is:

IS Michael Scheuer the illegitimate love child of Richard Clarke?

And WHO might the mother be?

My money's on Valerie Plame. ;)

[Max Combined]

This guy does not seem to understand the meaning of the word, "penultimate".

[Valin]

Again, if you cut through the propaganda and read the Jihadist rhetoric, the answer is simple: the Taliban resembled the ideal form of "government" Bin Laden would like imposed upon his fellow Muslims and the notorious "infidels."

One small quibble with the above quote, it's not just his "fellow Muslims" that he wants to live like the Tailiban but everybody.

Good Stuff!! Looks like another good blog.

[angkor]

I'm glad someonoe is bothering to examine Scheuer's past statements versus those of the present. When he interviews, Scheuer is one slippery fellow and it's difficult to get a fix on his position. Makes you feel like you're listening to Kerry or Clinton.

[angkor]

GeoPoliticalReview is excellent. Thanks for the tip.

[angkor]

GeoPoliticalReview is excellent. Thanks for the tip.

[Valin]

Latenight bump