Posted on 11/13/2004 11:42:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
When James Woolsey took the microphone at The Breakers Friday night, he told the 400-plus guests that he was honored to be asked to speak.
"Then again, I was a Washington lawyer for 22 years and I was director of the CIA under Bill Clinton. I'm actually honored to be invited to any polite gathering anywhere."
Woolsey, who served in two Democratic and two Republican administrations, was the guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
His topic was the war on terrorism, which he called "the long war of the 21st century."
"Some refer to it as World War Four," he said. "The Cold War was World War Three. And there are some similarities to the Cold War, which lasted for decades with some fighting, but not all the time."
The war on terrorism, he said, "will last for decades. For the younger people in the room, it will be to your generation what the Cold War was to mine. It will probably last the rest of your life."
The fight will be long, he said, because there is more than one enemy.
"We are facing three totalitarian enemies in the Mideast. The first is the fascist Baathists of Iraq and Syria. I don't use the term fascist loosely. The Baathists used the fascists as a model."
It is the Baathists the United States is fighting in Fallujah. "But calling them insurgents gives them too much credit," Woolsey said. "They call themselves the Party of Return, intent on bringing fascism back to Iraq and Syria. Their ideology really is dead. It's nothing more than an excuse for power.
"And although we'll be fighting them for some time to come, I don't think the Baathists have the legs of our other two enemies, both of which are Islamist."
They are the Shiite and Sunni Islamists, he said.
The Shiites are personified by "Khameini and the clerics who rule Iran," Woolsey said. "They are massively unpopular with young Iranians — and half the population of Iraq is under the age of 19 — women, and even his own clerics. That's because the kind of theocracy we see in Iran today is foreign to many Iranians, who are accustomed to a separation of mosque and state.
"Nevertheless, [the theocrats] are powerful. They will soon have a nuclear weapon, and we'll be fighting them for a while, as well."
The third enemy "is Sunni Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda. We'll be fighting them for a long, long time. Their ideology is not dead. They seek to establish a caliphate state, then to export it to the world that used to be Moslem — places like Spain — and then to the rest of the world.
"It sounds crazy, but it's no more crazy than the idea of communism or the Thousand-Year Reich."
Our third enemy has an enormous war chest, Woolsey explained.
"Much of the funding for them comes from extremely wealthy people, especially from Saudi Arabia."
That, combined with their religious zealotry, makes for a dangerous combination, he said.
"Think of them this way. Think of Spain during the time of the Inquisition, move it into the 21st century and put one-third of the world's oil supply underneath it. Torquemada would be a very powerful man, and everyone would try to emulate him."
Woolsey cited the Wahabi sect as critical players in the terrorist plan.
"Until the '70s, the Wahabis were an extreme sect, associated with the House of Saud but mostly stuck out in the desert. When the Saudi royal family became very rich in the '70s, they also became very frightened," Woolsey said. "There was a theocracy in Iran, and the Great Mosque in Mecca had been seized by Islamists. Since then, the Saudi royal family has effectively had a deal with the Wahabis — 'here's all the money you want to set up mosques in the U.S., just leave us alone. Don't disturb our wild parties in Marbella; don't even mention them.' The Wahabis have received $70 [billion] to $75 billion of Saudi money over the last 25 years.
"With all their resources, this fight will be with us a long, long time."
The annual meeting of the Philanthropy Roundtable ends today.
Must it last a long time? It seems as if we're fighting it Vietnam-style, if so. To whose advantage is that?
Wait a second... Caliphate... Caliph... CALIFORNIA!
Wow, that's weird... and apt.
The reason that it will last a while, because the terrorists are all over the globe, it's not like taking over a country and we are done.
We are making tremendous progress: in two years, we deposed two terrorist supporting governments, one country (Libya) gave up terror just watching this and learning from example, all in three years.
I don't see how you could say we are fighting this war "Vietnam style".
I have seen Woolsey numerous times over the years, and he has always seemed perfectly measured, non-flashy, very solid in his judgements and appraisals. I think he's generally right about this. I know some form of warfare will probably continue off and on for several more years.\
So much of it and its effectiveness directly relates to the funding, part of whose origin he locates in Saudi Arabia. They must be made to see that IT MUST STOP. It is not very different from the pre-conditions currently needed by the new Arafat-free Palestinian Authority if this moment it to be seized in the current power-grab, and the re-orientation to begin.
"... he didn't mention one of our main enemy: the enemy within, the Democrats and liberal media."
These guys are pussycats compared to all those other groups he mentioned. Anyway, isn't Allawi a Shiite? Boy, we sure got a lot of enemies. I liked it better when it was only the commies.
Because the funding sources and the population bases of the enemy are off limits. Another approach to fighting the war would be to let states which allowed funding or concealment of terrorism know that we could go back to total war methods that were known to work during WWII.
I'm not saying we should do that now, but I'm saying that an admission that we can't do that is an admission that we are fighting the war with self-imposed limits.
Is that the best way to win? Time will tell.
"Because the funding sources and the population bases of the enemy are off limits. Another approach..."
I don't think we tied our hands. Iraq was a state funding terrorism and certainly the population centers have been targeted. So if our methods don't work here, will they anywhere?
Lots of CIA going on tonight,...when it rains it pours.......
Neutron bomb
yes, but it is because we cannot allow a disruption of the flow of oil or the world economy will CRASH.
The War On Terror may be similar to Vietnam time-wise, FairOpinion.
Afghanistan and Iraq are just two continuing battles in the Campaign. Our forces are going to be in both countries for at least three years. Killing murderers. Allowing the Afghani and Iraqi people to have elections. Getting the countries up and running. Self-sufficient and un-afraid.
Even setting up forward Offensive bases for bomber, tank and helicopter operations. The threat of which, should settle Hamas and the PLO considerably.
It's not just going to take the Grunts on the ground to get it done. Intelligence needs to be developed to allow a "Phoenix"-like program of targeting the leaders, infrastructure, money and logistics.
To cut the legs out from under the bad guys. Using a Tomahawk or Predator-launched Hellfire when necessary. Snatching a money man. Or using a sniper (Specialities of SEALs and Delta) whenever possible. In the Middle East and probably the Phillipines as well.
Someone had to kick over the Hornets' Nest and finally confront the plague that's wrapping itself around the planet for 30 years.
I'm just glad that someone is President Bush. With him as CiC, I've no doubt that we shall prevail.
Jack.
Time to drill in ANWR!
So is Saudi Arabia's private citizenry, many of whom are linked to the government. Other countries have similar issues. They're either wealthy or they're in a position to proliferate weapons.
I support a strategy of one state at a time. I support the idea of limiting civilian casualties if it will work. But I do believe that this is a total war from the other side's perspective. The al Jazeera news outlet is very popular. It's not "state media." Freedom of the press in Egypt has brought greater liberty to the west's enemies, not less.
We're in for some interesting times. I hope our current methods succeed, and if anything they provide us with valuable experience. But I'm ambivalent about the need for it to take a lot of time. That in itself is a strategic decision. Is it the best way? We'll see.
A very interesting post by dk/coro. Thanks.
You are very welcome, sir. v/r dk
And your pokint IS?
pokint = point!
One of Bernard Lewis' conclusions is that there is little that the West can do to hasten the process of reform within the Islam civilization. In fact, he states that any attempts to do so will probably only make matters worse. If you are arguing that Iraq is the first step towards this modernization, I don't think Lewis would accept that as a wise first step.
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.