Posted on 08/23/2006 11:14:05 AM PDT by 2banana
Bahrain - Constitutional monarchy w/ an elected parliament
Bahrain is nice. Basically the Las Vegas of the Middle East, and not much larger. That said, monarchs are dictators. Poltical parties are outlawed in Bahrain, although political 'societies' are now allowed to congregate. Population: 700k.
Comoros - Democracy
I'll give you that one, even though 98% of Americans couldn't find it on a map. Population: 700k.
Egypt - Democracy. The last dictator, Nasser was always backed by USSR.
Come on, now. If Egypt is a democracy, so was the Soviet Union. All parties and candidates must be government sanctioned, and political repression is tight. Go make a 'Mubarak must resign' poster and walk down the street in Cairo. Record me how many steps you make it before Egyptian police beat you senseless, and get back to us. Population: 79 million.
Iraq - Democracy. US invaded specifically to depose the last dictator.
Iraq is democratic. That's two. Population: 27 million.
Jordan - Monarchy
Monarchs are dictators. Population: 6 million.
Kuwait - Monarchy w/ an elected parliament
Monarchs are dictators. Kuwaiit is a constitutional hereditary emirate, with all positions except for elected 50 legislators being appointed by the Amir. Population 2.5 million.
Lebanon - Democracy
Lebanon is nominally a democracy, albeit in reality it's a failed state run de facto by neighboring dictatorships and local terrorist groups. I'll give it to you, I guess, if you want to claim it. Population: 4 million.
Oman - Monarchy w/ an elected parliament
Monarchs are dictators. The Omani parliment is bicameral, on side being appointed, the other elected. Both have only advisory powers, and do not make law. Population: 3 million.
Palestine - Islamist Democracy
All you. Population: 2.5 million.
Qatar - Monarchy
Monarchs are dictators. Qatar does have some elected officials, who have advisory powers only. Population: 900,000.
Saudi Arabia - Monarchy
Monarchs are dictators. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst dictatorships on the planet. Population: 27 million.
Syria - Dictatorial Republic
Syria is a dictatorship. Population: 19 million.
UAE - Monarchy. Bin Laden used to (mid 90's) take its princes hunting i Afghanistan)
Monarchs are dictators. Population: 2.5 million.
Yemen - Democratic (although pro-US govt is viewed as corrupt by Islamists)
Yemen is democratic. Amusingly enough, the government is nominally pro-US, but Yemen is one of the most openly pro-jihad countries anywhere. Population: 21 million.
Iran (if you want to count it as Arab which it is not) - Islamist Democracy.
It is not Arab, but for arguement's sake, let's include it. Iran is a theocratic republic. Political parties and candidates must be approved by the government. Population: 69 million.
So, out of all of your examples, we have Comoros and Iraq leading the pack, with Lebanon, 'Palestine' and Yemen tied for 2nd. Combined population: Over 50 million. So which of the five would you like to move to first, to see democracy in action?
Any of the other countries named are centrally controlled, with political power given out in either symbolic or minor doses to the elected officials. Political repression is harsh, and open criticism of the government leads to violent reprisals, imprisonment, torture, or death. Call it democracy all you want. Just don't call it anything else while you're there, unless you want a visit from the local cops.
I never said that. I just said that they don't like their repressive governments. No matter where you go in the Middle East, that's going to resonate with people, be they secular liberal, or Wahabbi extremist.
Beyond that, there's a vast disparity in what people think should be done, and most people in the Middle East aren't fundamentalists. There are plenty of secular Arabs out there that don't want Islam as part of their government. The only reason that they are so outgunned is that both Islamic extremists and brutal dictators have a stranglehold on the politics of the region, and they tend to reinforce each other's harshness as part of their conflict.
Israel is not really that big a deal to the Middle Easterners, except for one important thing. They don't care about the plight of the Palestinians, and treat them like crap at every turn.
Israel a scapegoat, a rare topic in a world of taboos that they are allowed to openly hate. Arabs are powerless in the face of their own governments, but the shame and rage they feel is allowed to be expressed at Israel. Most Arabs have never been to Israel, and it doesn't affect their daily lives one whit, whether it was run by Jews, Buddhists, or Satan worshippers. They'd never know one way or another, and wouldn't care. They come up with a lot of reasons why they hate Israel (and, by extention, the West), but it all boils down to the fact that they're not allowed to hate anything else.
this is the asshole that was in charge of the "BIN LADEN" unit in the C.I.A in the mid to late 90's...and such a fine job he did...countless unanswered attacks that led to 3000 americans killed on 9-11...hes interviewed like hes some kind of an expert, in reality this jack-off was a complete failure..where do they get these guys, geez!!
All killed by Islamothugs.
The Muslims want an Islamic world and will never rest until they get it. Israel, US policies and all the other "reasons" for muslim terrorism are all side issues.
Their main goal is and always has been a world-wide caliphate. Everything else is window dressing.
Pretty much how I explain al-Qa'ida - Religious fundamentist extremism. They'll always be around, in some fashion. But those organizations, like any cult, at best, number in the low thousands. The problem isn't the hard core whackjobs, who will never be statistically significant. It's the fact that once they have a major grievance to subvert, people will flock to them.
It's the same thing that people did with Communism. It's hard core fanatics are rare, but the people who will sell out to it to win independence, or to fight another local evil, is the problem.
Thanks for the possibility of getting the questions to him. I very seriously doubt that he will answer any of them because thus far no one from the Clinton Administration has had to answer for their failures and I'm pretty sure it's not about to start now.
Mr. Schuerer is a disgruntled former spook who, due to his own failures was no longer allowed to participate in an area of intelligence that was not only of the highest importance (and status in the CIA) but was an area he considered himself singularly expert in. He blew it. He was downgraded and now he wants to blame the policy makers.
And, the book I referenced above is a very thorough, one-stop cavalcade of the deep and long-building origins of the religious-political philosophy and tactical purposes of Osama and his many clones, as well as the major historical elements and actions of Osama, Al Queda and the many past and present terrorist leaders with him, and like him. It should be required reading for everyone at the CIA, State Department and Pentagon.
We might be sold short by a POTUS who does not have the deep background compiled on this topic by the author; because I can think of many places in this long tale, documented by Wright, where CIA, State and DOD would not like to highlight their past, and possible continuing ignorance. But a POTUS who understands the full matter, as well as Wright has laid it out, will be more inclined to ask the questions that the presentation of CIA, State and DOD "analysis" is not addresssing.
I urge all Freepers to put "The Looming Tower" on their "must read" list.
Also described by another veteran CIA colleague (Robert Baer) in the NYT's best seller "See No Evil" - our human intelligence gather abilities under the Clinton administration was castrated...the wanted nothing to interfere with the polls.
Sorry, but the history and the facts don't agree with you. As late as 1998 the CIA had not affected one single direct human penetration of Al Queda or anyone near it. Most of what they thought they knew came from what they were told by other intelligence agencies (which never told them all they knew) and which left the CIA not even looking to track Osama until years after Al Queda was formed and its goals set, and then (mid to late 1990s) knowing mostly only, from the NSA technical data, where Osama was and not how his network was managing to operate. They did not, for far too long, understand the depth and breadth of the Islamic terrorist networks and the comprehensive religious-philosophical principles from which the rational for those networks developed; the principles Osama and all his clones believe in; and how it is those principles, and not US policy that draws in Osama's, Hamas, Hezbolla's recruits. CIA and State accepted the false notion, handed by Al Queda's religious backers to the "Muslim street" that US policy was the core problem that drove the terrorists to their actions, and our intelligence actions were actually reactions to our own acceptance of that false belief.
"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."
Yes, they, with the help of the American media, sell Arab and Muslim myths. There was no more oppressive state governing Muslims in the Middle East than Iraq under Saddam Hussein and he was not "backed" by the U.S., in spite of the myths told about the U.S. even-handed (hope for no winners) approach to Iran and Iraq during their war. Syria, another oppressive dictatorship has never been propped up or greatly embraced by the U.S. There is no more oppressive state in the Middle East governing Muslims today than the theocracy in Iran; no great puppet of the U.S. There was probably no more oppressive state in the Middle East than Afghanistan under the Taliban, and it was created by fellow-travelers of Osama, which should tell every Muslim of just what Osama's "liberation" has to offer.
Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are great at blaming everyone else for their own indigenous failures, expect the world to help get rid of their failures and then blame the world for interfering when it does. It doesn't matter, too many Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East just love victimhood.
I think you should ask the Saudis.
"Also described by another veteran CIA colleague (Robert Baer) in the NYT's best seller "See No Evil" - our human intelligence gather abilities under the Clinton administration was castrated...the wanted nothing to interfere with the polls."
I am no longer convinced it was purely "political" and incompetance on Clinton's part and how much it was a result of the entrenched, decades-old Saudi-centric views at Foggy Bottom and CIA itself. You must accept that the greatest amount of what we knew, what we thought we knew and when we thought we knew it, about Osama, was delivered (and filtered) by the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI. The Saudis in particular knew when, and how much he had decided to see us as his main target, long before we gained that knowledge. And, I question just how much we questioned the timing and level of honesty from them, about Osama, after his goals became known to us.
Look, Clinto was a schnook, now doubt.
However,
The CIA operational deficiencies you refer to, leading to less human intelligence, and greater reliance on "technical intelligence" and intelligence alliances with "allies" began in the aftermath of the Church Committee in the mid 1970s (when the humit exodus started).
The declines were slowed, but only marginally under Reagan (he went around formal CIA channels with people like Oliver North and others in special ops when he needed to) and continued again in a long decline after Reagan and including during the H.W. Bush era.
Clinton's period witnessed the advanced stages of an internal management-change process at CIA that had been building for almost twenty years. Had Clinton been a Reagan or a G.W.Bush type in the immediate post-H.W. Bush era and with Al Queda raising its head, might he have tried to change it or reverse it? Yes, maybe, but he didn't start the CIA decline, it was a process that began before he took office.
Fault him for not seeing it as a decline, but not for initiating it.
Part of the lax concern for humit grew, politically, from the "peace dividend" psychology after the fall of the Soviets. Al Queda was not even on the radar screen when Clinton was elected, China was seen as a long term "problem" but, barring some major change, not a strategic threat (probably a bigger error than not understanding Al Queda).
After the fall of the Soviets and what was believed to be "containment" of Iraq soon thereafter, and until the Al Queda, Iran and China areas were more clearly understood, by a few more years of history, there was a lot of political thinking, from both major parties, that humit was not as critical as it had always been. It was wrong, but it was not a strictly Democrat or liberal opinion at the time.
Did Clinton make some specific errors, in addition to his countenancing the humit decline that had already begun? Sure, like with the Osama-Sudan affair; just to name one. And, I can appreciate everyone's view of how political Clinton was in so many critical decisions. I don't think that is in dispute.
What I cannot do is attach Clinton's political motivations to every, or any one specific, decision with regard to Osama-Al Queda (we - as yet - have few if any "smoking guns" to prove them) and allow that suposition to disregard that I think many of his decisions were often favored and agreed to at the top, at CIA and State Department for their own reasons, outside of Clinton's politics; reasons related to forty years of "alliances" that State and CIA thought they had created and thought they could trust; not only trust in the operational sense, but trust that when we agreed to certain actions based on those alliances that the alliance had provided a good enough basis for trusting the results of those actions.
I think our State and CIA have grossly underestimated how much and how often the "national interest" of supposed allies, as opposed to what we think is our common interest, have affected the "advice" from "allies" to us in many areas; particularly when that advice has concerned issues for which they were also a primary source of the humint we had on the issue. I put the Saudis with Osama (from the 1980s to as late as 1999), and France with Saddam (up to now) in this category. Even G.W. has, in my mind, not fathomed the extent of this error yet, inspite of many examples since he took office.
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.