Posted on 08/23/2006 11:14:05 AM PDT by 2banana
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004; he served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the formerly anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. I met him for breakfast last week at an IHOP in the Virginia suburbs outside of Washington. Over a plate of eggs and hash browns, he answered a series of questions about the current state of the Bush Administration’s “War on Terrorism.” His prognosis was illuminating and insightful—and, unfortunately, almost unrelentingly grim.
1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that's just a body count, not progress. We can't capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
2. Is Al Qaeda stronger or weaker than it was five years ago?
The quality of its leadership is not as high as it was in 2001, because we've killed and captured so many of its leaders. But they have succession planning that works very well. We keep saying that we're killing their leaders, but you notice that we keep having to kill their number twos, threes and fours all over again. They bring in replacements, and these are not novices off the street—they're understudies. From the very first, bin Laden has said that he's just one person and Al Qaeda is a vanguard organization, that it needs other Muslims to join them. He's always said that his primary goal is to incite attacks by people who might not have any direct contact with Al Qaeda. Since 2001, and especially since mid-2005, there's been an increase in the number of groups that were not directly tied to Al Qaeda but were inspired by bin Laden's words and actions.
We also shouldn't underestimate the stature of bin Laden and Zawahiri in the Muslim world now that they’ve survived five years of war with the United States. You see commentary in the Muslim press: “How have they been able to defy the United States? It takes something special.” Their heroic status is an important fact. It helps explain why these cells keep popping up. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is also assisting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with the view that we've moved from man and organization to philosophy and movement, but one hasn't entirely replaced the other. There are three levels: Al Qaeda central is still intact; there are groups long affiliated with Al Qaeda, in places like Kashmir, the Philippines, and Indonesia; and there are the new groups inspired by Al Qaeda.
3. Given all this, why hasn't there been an attack on the United States for the past five years?
It's not just a lack of capacity; they're not ready to do it. They put more emphasis on success than speed, and the next attack has to be bigger than 9/11. They could shoot up a mall if that's what they wanted to do. But the world is going their way. Our leaders have been clever in defining success as preventing a big terrorist attack on the United States, but we've lost some 3,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've spent billions on those wars, and as in Vietnam the government has suffered a real hit on its credibility. The war in Iraq has created huge divisiveness in our domestic politics, not to mention in our relationships with our European allies. At the same time, there are more people willing to take up arms against the United States, and we have less ability to win hearts and minds in the Arab world. If you're bin Laden living in a cave, all those things are part of the war and those things are going your way.
4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
It broke the back of our counterterrorism program. Iraq was the perfect execution of a war that demanded jihad to oppose it. You had an infidel power invading and occupying a Muslim country and it was perceived to be unprovoked. Many senior Western officials said that bin Laden was not a scholar and couldn't declare a jihad but other Muslim clerics did. So that religious question was erased.
Secondly, Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. We see Iraq as a honey pot that attracts jihadists whom we can kill there instead of fighting them here. We are ignoring that Iraq is not just a place to kill Americans; Al Qaeda has always said that it requires safe havens. It has said it couldn't get involved with large numbers in the Balkans war because it had no safe haven in the region. Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.
5. Things seemed to have turned for the worse in Afghanistan too. What's your take on the situation there?
The President was sold a bill of goods by George Tenet and the CIA—that a few dozen intel guys, a few hundred Special Forces, and truckloads of money could win the day. What happened is what's happened ever since Alexander the Great, three centuries before Christ: the cities fell quickly, which we mistook for victory. Three years later, the Taliban has regrouped, and there's a strong insurgency. We paid a great price for demonizing the Taliban. We saw them as evil because they didn't let women work, but that's largely irrelevant in Afghanistan. They provided nationwide law and order for the first time in 25 years; we destroyed that and haven't replaced it. They're remembered in Afghanistan for their harsh, theocratic rule, but remembered more for the security they provided. In the end, we'll lose and leave. The idea that we can control Afghanistan with 22,000 soldiers, most of whom are indifferent to the task, is far-fetched. The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 soldiers and utter brutality. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, [the military historian] John Keegan said the only way to go there was as a punitive mission, to destroy your enemy and get out. That was prescient; our only real mission there should have been to kill bin Laden and Zawahiri and as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible, and we didn't do it.
6. Has the war in Lebanon also been a plus for the jihadists?
Yes. The Israel-Hezbollah battle validates bin Laden. It showed that the Arab regimes are useless, that they can't protect their own nationals, and that they are apostate regimes that are creatures of the infidels. It also showed that the Americans will let Israel do whatever it wants. It was clear from the way the West reacted that it would let Israel take its best shot before it tried diplomacy. I saw an article in the Arab press—in London, I think—that said Lebanon was like a caught fish, that the United States nailed it to the wall and Israel gutted it. The most salient point it showed for Islamists is that Muslim blood is cheap. Israel said it went to war to get back its captured soldiers. The price was the gutting of Lebanon. Olmert said that Israel would fight until it got its soldiers back and until Hezbollah was disarmed. Neither happened. No matter how you spin it, this will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then there have been the two intifadas, and now this. The idea of Israel being militarily omnipotent is fading.
7. And finally, an extra question—what needs to be done?
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies—and at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy.
At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.
What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil. What benefit do we get by letting China commit genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs? What do we get out of supporting Putin in Chechnya? He may need to do it to maintain his country, but we don't need to support what looks like a rape, pillage, and kill campaign against Muslims. The other area is Israel and Palestine. We're not going to abandon the Israelis but we need to reestablish the relationship so it looks like we're the great power and they're our ally, and not the other way around. We need to create a situation where moderate Muslims can express support for the United States without being laughed off the block.
Michael Scheurer is NOT an expert in this at all...he was wrong starting with the answer to the first question.
Thanks for the note.
But if we parse this situation too finely we'll never defeat these nuts.
(1)Al Queda,
I rarely have a kind word to say about the CIA, but to say that they didn't understand Bin Laden is simply false. They had Clinton to deal with, and he wasn't interested in doing anything that had a whiff of risk on it.
(2)its basis in radical Islamic fundamentalist philosophy - not reactions to U.S. policy -
At the core of al-Qa'ida, they couldn't care less about U.S. policy, because they're religious fanatics. But, the reason that the U.S. policy angle sells so well in the Middle East is that most people there live under the boot of U.S. backed dictatorships, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They see their own governments as cowards and bullies who sell their people out to stay rich and live like kings, and arm themselves with U.S. firepower. Islam totally notwithstanding, that's a huge factor in AQ's attraction as a resistance movement.
and (3) just how deep the radical philosophy was penetrating Islamic societies and creating public push in those societies for changes in the policies of Islamic nations, to fulfill the goals of the radical philosophy - movement toward a world Islamic caliphate.
That's true, in the same way that global Communism appealed to many purely nationalistic movements. It was a source of power that helped them achieve a goal, even as it corrupted them along the way.
Jihadist backers are no different than Soviet ones. They have a seductive sounding offer that promises power, support, and a unifying ideal. It seeks to tap into genuine local problems, and to pervert them for other uses, though. Still, 8th century Islam wouldn't be persuasive at all in the absence of major injustice in the region. As Americans, we have a hard time understanding what repressed and powerless people will sell out to in order to be free, even if it means trading one devil for another.
I think that the USA could pull out of all Muslim countries...could build a fence and become totally isolationist..and it wouldn't change the "hearts and minds"...
And they would STILL attack us...
You need to read Robert Spencer's book that was recommended on this thread.
You mean this answer?
Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
I've got a lot of negative observations about Middle Eastern culture, but I will say one thing: they're not blind. Our actions are not in sync with our words, which is why they don't believe us when we talk about freedom and democracy.
Anyway, if you (and apparently a number of other FReepers) think his first answer is wrong, then we're in for a longer war than I thought.
NO...the part of the first answer that was wrong..was right at the start..and so the rest of the first answer didn't matter..
"In the long run we're not safer because we are operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when IN FACT, WE ARE HATED BECAUSE OF OUR ACTIONS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD."
That part....we aren't hated for either of those reasons...because look at Madrid, London, Bali, THOSE countries aren't doing what America DOES...
The reason is because WE ARE NOT MUSLIMS....PERIOD.
Their culture, such as it is, is dying. Most Middle Easterners probably wouldn't miss it, except that was being replaced by a post-Islamic secular void marked only by repression, powerlessness and poverty.
Radical Islam starts to look pretty good at that point, as would any kooky cult with an escapist, self-empowering gradiose theme to it.
Arabs really do marvel at how we live, but they see us as trumpeting democracy while paying dictators to keep them repressed. That does damage any potential relationship we'd have with them.
They met at an IHOP?
I envision two men wearing dark suits speaking in low conspiratorial tones in the orange plastic confines of the booth.."uh, excuse me Mike..but I think you've got a bit of egg on your face..."
Given that he had the job under Clinton, what was he supposed to do when Clinton wouldn't give the green light, time and time again, to take UBL out? Clinton clearly had no interest in pursuing AQ beyond tossing an occasional $500,000 cruise missile at a empty $5 tent. That decade was a crucial incubation time for al-Qa'ida, and Clinton took practically no postive stepts to nip it in the bud.
Blaming the intelligence agencies or the military or anyone else who was ready to go get him, but lacked permission from the CinC, isn't exactly fair.
The whole palestinian thing is a total cannard. Its a fundraising tool. The jihadists and the arab media point to the poor abused palestinians all the freakin time while failing to point out that of the 4 countries who have been to war with the 'palestinians' in the last 40 years only one of them was Israel.
I really love the whole 'we are only antagonizing them by fighting them' approach. I guess the best thing we could do would just be build a big freaking wall around our coasts, hiring 200,000 union members to hand-sort the contents of every container, resign from the UN/NATO/WTO/CFR/UNICEF/ and, oh yeah, kill all of the Jews!!!! Yeah, that would really make them love us and forgot that they are a pathetically delinquent society 700 years behind the West with ugly women, uglier men, no freedom, no pursuit of happiness and no skills beyond beheadings foreigners or beating their wives.
I'm sure that the US trying to keep Iran from going nuclear is also going to really piss off the jihadist so we better stop doing that as well. And I'm sure that when we helped the muslims in Afghanistan in the 80s & in Sarajevo, Bosnia & Kuwait in the 90s that was also causing the 'arab street' to hate us for 'what we do'. Gosh, we really have a lot to make up for.
Maybe this genius has an idea why it is that the muslim world seems not to just hate the U.S. but every other country in the world??? They are at war with the Russians in Chechnya, India, Israel, Sudan, Sri Lanka, etc. etc. Are the Sudanese people somehow doing something wrong to antagonize these jihadists and get themselves beheaded? Very confusing to follow the logic.
A lot of people are missing the point on the Middle East. Before we can win the fight, we have to figure a few things out:
1. Islamic Ideology
2. State Nationalism
3. Trade(oil)
Which one of those 3 things has the MOST impact on our dealings with countries in the Middle East, from oour perception, and from THEIR perception, which is more important?
This is NOT an easy question to answer. Yet, somehow, if we want "peace", we have to figure out how to make the US national interests and interests of the people in the Middle East mesh together.
If the answer is #1 (Islamic Ideology), then we are in a war to the death. Islamic Ideology and Western Civilization/Judeo-Christian Ideals are NOT compatible at their most basic tenants.
If the Answer is #2, we have to figure out how to keep #1 from overpowering #2. Right now, we are working on the #2 supposition.
I believe #3 is the last one on the Middle Eastern person's list, but is actually probably #1 on the US list.
Those two countries are jihad magnets and recruiting tools that pull in more terrorists every day. His top leadership, when taken out one by one, is replacable, since we never get large numbers of them at any time. From the looks of the stage he sent his last video from, if it's a cave he's living in it's a roomy, high end model. Finally, given how long he's been attacking America, he's probably surprised to be alive at all in mid 2006.
OBL wanted wars in which muslims would be killing and conquering the infidels. What he has now (mostly) is muslims killing muslims in muslim lands.
What he wanted specifically was for all true Muslims to rise up and fight apostate Muslims and infidels. Since he considers all of the dying Muslims to be either apostates or martyrs, and that his global jihadist movement is growing every year, while we're bogged down in Iraq, things aren't going quite as bad for his whackjob sceme as you'd think.
Again, I hate being in the position of having to defend the CIA, who I generally loathe, but in the Clinton era they were basically blindfolded and handcuffed behind the back before being sent into the boxing ring. Our HUMINT collection was legally emascualted years ago, and our paramilitary CIA guys, while top notch, can't do anything without the green light from the guy in the Oval Office.
1. Islamic Ideology
Islamic extremists are a persistant and reoccurring problem, but by themselves they're not very popular. They have two things really going for them now that makes them a potent threat: widespread discontent, and vast financial resources. Without those two factors, they'd be a tiny fraction of their current threat.
2. State Nationalism
Beyond idenifying with a state, ethnic group, or tribe, the biggest cause of discontent in the region is the fact that they have appallingly bad government. In most cases, the ones holding the oil developed a stranglehold on the country and wound up running things, usually throwing cash at people to buy them off, including radical Imams. It's hard to overstate how deeply this discontent runs, or why radical Islam would be seen as an attractive alternative to repression, but that's how it is.
3. Trade(oil)
I think that oil would rank #1 or #2 with both them and us. Honestly, we'd spend no more focus on the Middle East than we do Tanzania if they had no oil, and everyone knows it. The Middle Easterners far more than us realise that. They openly resent our support of local dictatorships as a way to keep them in a perpetual banana republic stage of development, simply to keep the oil flowing and our economies running strong. Our policy appears to them to be "Do what's good for business, and the locals be damned."
To a great extent, they're right. That double standard makes our cries for 'freedom' and 'democracy' sound hollow and calculated.
They'd like to believe us and to believe in what we say we stand for, but they don't see our actions backing that up. Radical Islam, for whatever bad can be said about it, does believe what it says and acts accordingly, no matter how cuckoo it is.
Schuerer always demonstrates why his colleagues ignored him. He does claim, however, that they delivered bin Laden to Clinton 10X with sighters on the ground and eash time Clinton passed.
You have a wrong premise - that Muslims want to be free in the sense of freedom as understood by Western civilization.
The only "freedom" a Muslim wants is to repress people in the name of religion. Ask any Muslim woman, for starters.
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.