Another Bush Book to be Ignored

[subgenius]

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 19, 2004
The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
..............

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."
.....
Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.
.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1242639,00.html

 

[aerocontrols]

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Amped up. I should say so.

To secure as much of our way of life as possible, we will have to use military force in the way Americans used it on the fields of Virginia and Georgia, in France and on Pacific islands, and from skies over Tokyo and Dresden. Progress will be measured by the pace of killing....

Killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. With killing must come a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. Roads and irrigation systems; bridges, power plants, and crops in the field; fertilizer plants and grain mills — all these and more will need to be destroyed to deny the enemy its support base....uch actions will yield large civilian casualties, displaced populations, and refugee flows. Again, this sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world.

To this, Kevin Drum and his readers want to know if the focus should be on the last sentence - perhaps with different policies such actions wouldn't be necessary. So Drum asks Ackerman, who has read Anonymous' book.

Guess not.

Our principles stop us from fighting bin Laden as he fights us. ‘We must fix the sources of al-Qaeda’s support — poverty, illiteracy, and hopelessness.’ ‘Bin Laden is attacking the civilized world; we must work with others and respond in a manner in line with international law.’ Cant, all cant — the obfuscating and ahistorical language of cowardice and defeat....

America is in a war for survival. Not survival in terms of protecting territory, but in terms of keeping the ability to live as we want, not as we must....There are two choices. We can continue using and believing the cant cited above, or we can act to preserve our way of life — what Mr. Lincoln said is man’s last best hope for self-government — by engaging in whatever martial behavior is needed. We owe this to ourselves, our heritage and our posterity. We protect none of these by cloaking cowardice with canting words about international comity, civilized norms, and high moral standards. Such words are proper only in a suicide note for the nation.

Ackerman sums up:

Since he doesn’t see much promise in an ideological (read: democracy promotion) campaign, or in trying to alleviate the “hopelessness” of the Muslim world (which he calls “cant” in the section quoted above), the military option is the one he relies the heaviest on, and his conception of what’s militarily necessary is very wide-ranging. The prospect of energy self-sufficiency and foreign disengagement (He writes, “There is no greater duty today’s Americans can perform for their nation and posterity than to finally abandon the sordid legacy of Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism, which soaked the twentieth century in as much or more blood as any other “ism”) can do something to diminish the need for war to an unspecified degree, but can’t substitute for it.

So Anonymous thinks that if we disengage internationally and get self-sufficient in energy, we may be able to avoid some of the all-out war that he predicts we'll eventually need. Meanwhile, talk about democracy promotion or human rights or international law or morality in general is crap, fit for nothing but a suicide note.

I'm sure you and American and Nie Trink will find much in Anonymous' book to agree with. Well, maybe not you, Subby.

The Guardian's story looks like wishful thinking to me. Near the end they say

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

Apparently what they don't realize is that Anonymous favors the all-out confrontation - it's the democracy promotion he thinks is ill-advised. Perhaps they haven't read the whole book... or maybe they can't read past "Bush was wrong"

(For some reason I was under the impression that you read Talking Points Memo fairly regularly and would have already known this. Guess not.)

MattJ

 

[chrisberez]

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Have to say, I agree with this part.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous",

This I find highly suspect. One could argue that whatever this source is, they might rightly fear a strong backlash from the Bush administration. But still... I tend to be very skeptical when it comes to unnamed, and therefore consequently undocumented sources. The burdon of proof with these things is always with the claiment. And although I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of these things (if not all) turned out to be true, I need more proof.

So, what does it mean to be at war with Islam? First, it means we must accept this reality and act accordingly. Second, it means a U.S. policy status quo in the Muslim world ensures a gradually intensifying war for the foreseeable future, one that will be far more costly than we now imagine. Third, it means we will have to publicly address issues — support for Israel, energy self-sufficiency, and the worldwide applicability of our democracy — long neglected and certain to raise bitter, acrimonious debates that will decide whether the American way of life survives or shrinks to a crabbed, fearful, and barely recognizable form.

...................................................................................................

That said, he does believe, and states at numerous points in the book (and reiterates in our interview), that we have no choice but to fight a very bloody battle.

Quite frankly, this scares the living hell out of me. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. But of course, since the interviewee is "anonymous," who the hell knows how much credibility he has?

 

[subgenius]

His identity as a senior intelligence officer was just confirmed by CBS.

 

[Tony]

Quite frankly, this scares the living hell out of me.

Just curious, but why?

 

[corplinx]

From the Guardian article it looks like a copy and paste job from any democrat stump speech. Especially the laughable part about the unprovoked war in Iraq from a person who was around long enough to remember that the first Iraq war has been in stasis under a shaky ceasfire with constant Iraqi breaches in the zones.

I'm sure it will be ignored since it isn't apparently saying anything that hasn't already been said and argued.

 

[aerocontrols]

From the Guardian article it looks like a copy and paste job from any democrat stump speech.

That's what puzzles me. Based on sections of his book and his interview at TPM, this guy's positions are not even in the same orbit as 'joe random Democratic politician'. He's in the 'turn the Middle East into a parking lot' camp. (which hopefully, Peter Bergen's endorsement aside, remains a small camp)

Surely the Guardian knew this, but they whitewash him anyway. How is that good journalism?

MattJ

 

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by subgenius
"Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."..."

I'd be very leery of anyone who thinks that the 'War on Terror' exists or is winnable if only we had done something different.

I'd be even more leery of anyone who thinks that "intelligence counter-terrorist" is a profession.

And 'anonymous' and 'senior officials' means career politicians, so let's just make this one 3 strikes and call it out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anonymous, quoted by aerocontrols:

Again, this sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world.

Surely he's saying here that the result of current failed policies will result in the bombing of the region into ever smaller gravel? The Western model of democracy (nobody would claim that Japan or South Korea conform to that model) is not the only alternative to the Islamist model (whatever that is). Trying to plant such a system in a multi-ethnic Mesopotamia will leave much of the population in fear of domination by some other faction - probably the Sunnis with Turkish support, if past experience is anything to go by. That's no long-term solution, any more than the previous experiments with democracy in Iraq have been.

 

[corplinx]

That's what puzzles me. Based on sections of his book and his interview at TPM, this guy's positions are not even in the same orbit as 'joe random Democratic politician'. He's in the 'turn the Middle East into a parking lot' camp. (which hopefully, Peter Bergen's endorsement aside, remains a small camp)

Surely the Guardian knew this, but they whitewash him anyway. How is that good journalism?

MattJ

On one hand you see the same style rhetoric of people like Mike Moore, on the other hand you see a scorched earth policy advocated. Weird, huh?

 

[Nikk]

His identity as a senior intelligence officer was just confirmed by CBS.

If true this would once again confirm Groucho's view that "military intelligence is a contradiction in terms".

Looks like the Gaurdian screwed up though.

 

[Nikk]

That's what puzzles me. Based on sections of his book and his interview at TPM, this guy's positions are not even in the same orbit as 'joe random Democratic politician'. He's in the 'turn the Middle East into a parking lot' camp. (which hopefully, Peter Bergen's endorsement aside, remains a small camp)

Surely the Guardian knew this, but they whitewash him anyway. How is that good journalism?

MattJ

I really wouldn't assume that "the Gaurdian knew this" . A cock up is more likely, such as the correspondent sending over the rehashed contents of a publicity handout about a book he hadn't read. My father used to work for the paper by the way so this isn't pure guesswork.

 

[aerocontrols]

Anonymous, quoted by aerocontrols:

Surely he's saying here that the result of current failed policies will result in the bombing of the region into ever smaller gravel? The Western model of democracy (nobody would claim that Japan or South Korea conform to that model) is not the only alternative to the Islamist model (whatever that is). Trying to plant such a system in a multi-ethnic Mesopotamia will leave much of the population in fear of domination by some other faction - probably the Sunnis with Turkish support, if past experience is anything to go by. That's no long-term solution, any more than the previous experiments with democracy in Iraq have been.

I don't believe you're really following him. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original post.

Let's go over the timeline:

Spencer Ackerman at TPM reads Anony's book and interviews him at length, where he spouts off a lot of crazy crap and the bit you quote above.

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly reads the crazy crap and correctly identifies it as crazy crap. Kevin's commenters say, 'wait a minute, what about that bit there (the bit you quote) - isn't he essentially saying (what Capeldodger said)?'

Kevin asks Ackerman that question.

Ackerman says 'Seems not, he's really just nuts'.

When Anonymous talks about 'failed policies' he means support for Israel, any sort of serious criticism of bad regimes, etc. I think that in a world where Anony ran things, we never would have turned on Saddam just because he killed a few Kurds and invaded Kuwait.

Maybe if you read the Ackerman interview and the later discussion at Washington Monthly you'll come to a different conclusion.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

I really wouldn't assume that "the Gaurdian knew this" . A cock up is more likely, such as the correspondent sending over the rehashed contents of a publicity handout about a book he hadn't read. My father used to work for the paper by the way so this isn't pure guesswork.

The Guardian article says that they interviewed him. I'm not going to defend the Guardian's journalism, though. It could be as you say.

MattJ

 

[subgenius]

The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.
In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

 

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.
In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

Who knew Bin Laden celebrated Christmas.

 

[CapelDodger]

from aerocontrols:

Ackerman says 'Seems not, he's really just nuts'.

That's Spencer Ackerman's opinion. Kevin Drum's "commenters" and I seem to have interpreted the line in the same way.

Again, this sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world.

(My emphasis)
"Standing by" clearly refers to the current policies, not policies that are being promoted by Anon. I don't see how it can be read any other way.

 

[aerocontrols]

from aerocontrols:

That's Spencer Ackerman's opinion. Kevin Drum's "commenters" and I seem to have interpreted the line in the same way.
(My emphasis)
"Standing by" clearly refers to the current policies, not policies that are being promoted by Anon. I don't see how it can be read any other way.

Ok, I misunderstood you. I believed you were limiting your criticism (what is a current policy) more than you were. Yes, Anon disagrees with the current policies. But what Ackerman says Anon believes is that the new policies aren't any better than pre-9/11 policies.

Anon is saying that our decades of involvement in the Middle East have left us with little choice but to wage total war, and to h#ll with international norms or democracy promotion or concern for civilian lives. Those (among others) are the policies he's currently promoting. This probably explains why the Clinton Administration moved him out of the anti-Bin Laden unit he was tasked with creating.

As to Spencer Ackerman's opinion - it's informed, and for the time being at least, while yours and Drum's commentator's opinions are not. He, at least, has read Anon's book as well as conducted a lengthy interview with him.

MattJ

 

[CapelDodger]

from aerocontrols:

Yes, Anon disagrees with the current policies. But what Ackerman says Anon believes is that the new policies aren't any better than pre-9/11 policies.

Again with the "what Ackerman says ..." . I'll have to see his quotes of Anon in context; this thread has made a flying-start really, with the book not yet released. I'm seeing some friends from the local paper tomorrow, perhaps I can get hold of a review copy. When we read the book we'll find out what policies, if any, Anon favours. He clearly doesn't favour the policies that have brought us to this point, which is not, lets face it, where anybody would want to be. Except lunatics, of course.

That said, and going on Ackerman's description, I agree with Anon that the Iraq war at this time was not a good option, although I think intervention in Afghanistan was. It's been handled very badly since the fall of the Taliban, not least because this administration's attention has always been focused on Iraq. Afghanistan cannot be put back together as a country. The Pashtun goat-molesters should be left to their own devices, Herat should become part of Iran (it's a Persian city, which happened to be captured by the Afghan King in 1749(?)-ish), Kabul district should become an independent UN protectorate, Dostum should be shot. Various ideas could be looked at, but just trying to tie back together something that failed before is worse than useless. The borders were drawn up by Russia and Britain in the 19thCE - which explains that weird pan-handle extending to China through the Hindu Kush, separating the Russian and British Empires. It has no rationale or legitimacy.

I'm looking forward to reading this book.