How to defeat ISIS? First, don't fall into the 9/11 trap

Maybe you saw Obama-Hollande's joint speech today about ISIS?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/24/457224374/trying-to-build-robust-coalition-against-isis-hollande-arrives-in-washington

I think a recent poll showed that like 23% of Americans approve of how Obama has been handling ISIS so far. But his "don't do stupid shit" (aka don't make things worse) strategy takes a while to bear fruit, and most Americans lack the patience/long view to appreciate that. I think that's preferable to the alternative (the Bush way), and most in the media/politics never consider the lives and treasure saved (and diplomatic crises avoided) by Obama not engaging in a knee-jerk aggressive action. The French are all on board for whatever forceful response Hollande has in the works (they've already flown like 800 sorties against ISIS since 11/13), because like the US after 9/11, I guess people need the catharsis of knowing that you've swiftly hit back at the enemies who just surprised and hurt you.

Kerry seems optimistic that a "ceasefire" can be reached between the Assad gov't and the "moderate" resistance groups, if global powers can apply pressure on the Syrian players that they influence. NATO is reaching out to Russia to help, but I don't think Iran is at the table. If an agreement can be forged, then all parties can "unite" to take down ISIS. While that would be superior to the status quo, and would probably somewhat reduce suffering and the refugee crisis in the region, beating ISIS militarily is not the endgame. New ISIS'es will spring up even after we're all dead. It's just a matter of when/where the conditions are right for them to rise up (and it's in no short supply: corrupt gov'ts, wealth inequality, uneducated Muslim populace, marginalized Muslim immigrants, Islamophobia, provocative/aggressive Western foreign policies, etc.).

How about we consider other ways to beat ISIS? Whether or not it's true, there was an idea circulating that Osama wanted to use 9/11 to draw the US into a protracted Crusader-vs-Jihadist ground conflict in the Middle East that would serve as a great recruiting beacon and a means of sapping US power/influence in the region. Regardless of his grand plans, that is what happened anyway. Leaders like Bush and Blair fell into the trap - well "fell" sounds like an accident, they more like proudly leapt into the trap.

Terrorists can't beat conventional forces/gov'ts straight up - that's why they're terrorists. They win by provocation and propaganda: magnifying their influence/impact/perception from the victims' response to isolated terror attacks. Even 100 coordinated 9/11s would not bring down the US regime. It would be painful, but we would eventually recover. What Al Qaeda did on 9/11 had a huge multiplier effect for them. It triggered an increased dislike of Muslims by many Western peoples, which marginalized Muslim immigrants and drove thousands of them to militancy (more in Europe and Asia than the Americas). It triggered the US/NATO to invade or increase military presence in several Muslim nations, which upset the local populace and gave Jihadists the opportunity to launch thousands of new attacks on Crusader targets. We tortured and brutally killed thousands of Muslims (many innocent) - which was a gift-wrapped Xmas present to Osama.

So one historic terror attack (9/11) spawned thousands of other terror events, trillions of Western dollars wasted, and thousands of Westerners dead (and the creation of new terror groups like ISIS). Talk about ROI for Osama. Yes, Al Qaeda was decimated in the process, but that is compatible with their nihilist-martyr worldview, and their ranks will be replenished as long as the prevailing Crusader-Jihadist entrenched global hostility remains. It's now harder to execute new attacks against the US, but there are no shortage of Western soft targets to go after in less secure parts of the world like Africa and Turkey.

A successful terror movement depends on the terrorized power to freak out, overreact, and shoot themselves in the foot. We should learn from last decade and not grant ISIS the same benefit. ISIS wants us to be meaner to Muslims living in the West (pushing them away from our values and closer to ISIS types), to block the escape of moderate Muslims and desperate refugees from the Mideast, and of course to put vulnerable Crusader boots on the ground that they can launch new attacks against. Basically, ISIS loves the GOP agenda in response to the 11/13 attacks. This is when we need to think with our brains and not our balls (or our panic/fears). Yes, inaction is frustrating as ISIS gloats, but a short-term pain is worth a long-term victory - especially when you consider the alternative that I've just described.

The Senate CIA torture report

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/09/20-quick-take-aways-senate-report-cia-torture/

Some of this was already known or suspected by us, but the confirmation and surprising excesses just make me ashamed to be American. It's a black mark on all the Americans who previously or currently fight for freedom and human rights honorably, or in some cases they do it smartly/peacefully so they don't need to fight at all.

Of course the CIA regurgitated the same tired lines that this disclosure will put US personnel and interests in danger overseas, and their tactics (albeit ugly) prevented attacks. Well on the first point, there is no such thing as secrecy in our social media connected world. Even if there was no Senate report, people all over the world have experienced or know of relatives and neighbors getting kidnapped, tortured, or assassinated. Do you think they don't care and just forget? They hate us for it and it breeds new security threats for the US. So don't blame the Senate for exposing what foreigners already know. The Senate is just forcing the apathetic, aloof public to look at ourselves in the mirror - which is a critical requirement of a functional free society that we may overlook.

Re: their second point, that the ends justify the means - well we know where that argument leads. Technically, it will probably make America safer if we nuke Pakistan tomorrow. Are we prepared to do that? Of course not. From a utilitarian perspective, you have to draw the line on how much evil you are willing to commit to do good, and I think our society wants to have a very low bar for that (as we should). If the outcome is good, you can rationalize and make all the excuses you want. But what if you're wrong and you failed? You committed all that evil for no gain, and we have to deal with the consequences of the evil too. The Senate report suggested that torture did generate some actionable intel, but they weren't critical pieces of intel, and in many cases that info was also obtained through more ethical means. So it was a lot of evil for very little benefits, and there were better ways to get the same benefits. Of course intel under duress is full of lies and false leads, which wasted intel resources. The CIA is a gov't agency too - so hawkish conservatives need to remember that it's not immune to similar screw-ups as we've seen at the VA, HHS, IRS, etc.

Like the recent NSA abuses, this is what happens when we as a society get so lazy/fearful/egocentric that we let our perceived security trump everything else, and entrust it to sociopaths with little to no scruples or accountability (and plenty of ulterior motives). Maybe that is not fair; I do believe that many in our security apparatus (even the criminals) do really love America and believe that they are doing what is best for our safety. But like Wall Street, they fail to take a broader, longer view of what safety truly means. Their mission at hand is not necessarily compatible to the overall mission of the US. And maybe like US law enforcement, we give the CIA more credit than they actually deserve in terms of brainpower and competence. Because it's pretty scary to ponder - are our protectors actually inept and immoral? Well it's better that we ask and find out, rather than just hope for the best and get a rude awakening (like 9/11, or Bay of Pigs, or Iran-Contra, and the list goes on and on).

Anyone who has worked a corporate job knows how easily it is for depts and teams to get fixated on their immediate objectives and success criteria, without considering the implications/significance on the overall company's success. I think this probably occurred at the CIA and NSA. Their narrow success criteria are "intel" and kills (in the case of the CIA), and they are the ones who get to tell their "customers" how good of a job they're doing. So without due diligence, attribution, and independent scrutiny, who is to say whether their intel and kills are actually low or high value? So of course, each morsel of info they gather is a home run, and each target they murder was an immediate threat to the US. They are incentivized to get as much info as possible, by whatever means available (and under Bush and Obama, they got the keys to the kingdom).

Sure there is some federal oversight, but most of it is classified and never gets public review. I don't think that is a very smart way to structure things. But we can't really expect the CIA and NSA to not go hog wild if we give them such freedom, mandate, and budgets. The bigger blame is on our civilian leaders who let the beast out of the cage, and the US public who failed to hold any of them accountable (until it was too late). And I doubt anyone will get fired or go to jail over the report, which adds to the tragedy. 

---

Regarding points 1 and 2 I would offer a less cynical approach:

1.  It will endanger Americans because the truth being exposed is ugly.  I heard some official say there really isn't a good time to release this kind of info.  So pragmatically speaking, they should expect backlash.  So not a reason to stop the release but an accepted cost of release.

2.  Whether this is true or not I can imagine an insider wanting or needing it to be true.  Not that the ends justify the means but that the means, having been done, provided something worthwhile.  The alternative is all loss and nothing redeeming.

So hopefully some of these people are making these assertions for the right reasons instead of political ones.

----

Thx, M. Yeah as you said, there's never really a good time to announce bad news. But if the CIA was worried about this stuff getting out and endangering Americans, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place. It's the act, not the revelation, that is damaging. And so far, I haven't heard of any attacks on US targets. An optimistic way of looking at it might be that foreigners will respect America more for investigating its dirty laundry rather than burying/denying it like Putin or Kim might.

Like the VA hearings a while back, this is of course is prompting calls for a "total review" of the Agency and cultural change, but as we know, that stuff happens slowly or never. Congress seems upset that they were misled/not fully informed, although the CIA denies it. No president (incl. Obama) has tried to stand up and rein in the CIA. There was some talk that Kennedy wanted to after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but obviously didn't get the chance (and some believe that the CIA had a role in his death, but I don't mean to bring up conspiracies).

I think the timing of the report is slightly political, as the Dems are losing the Senate next month. But based on the sheer volume of the report, I guess it was years in the making. There was a push within the Dem party to investigate and try to hold someone accountable for the errors during the Bush years (they already did 9/11 and WMDs, so torture/Gitmo was the last one).

---

Why are they beyond reproach? They were created by the state, and the state represents the citizenry. It's not like they're some rogue kingdom like North Korea that we have to handle with kid gloves. But I guess they do act like a "state within a state" at times.

Maybe our leaders don't have the stomach for it, but with a stroke of a pen, Congress and the President could require the CIA to expose its finances, data, and emails each year (to the right eyes of course), and we could appoint an independent watchdog that needs to be present at all high level intel and strategy meetings - and also has to approve any tier 1 action. Just knowing that someone is watching you is often enough to clean up behavior and reduce risk taking. And if this is done delicately, it won't degrade our security readiness at all. In fact, could be the opposite. Sure the CIA will bitch about it (no one likes a micromanager), but then they should have behaved better in the first place.

---

Isn't that sort of not true though?  I mean the whole part that is in contention is whether and/or to what extent the CIA fed lies to the overseers.  The classic who watches the watchers dilemma.  So watchdog all you like there will never be a guarantee that an agency whose sole agenda is covert ops will be fully forthright with anyone but themselves.  Not to say we quit and take it but these gaps in information are sort of the cost of entry to this type of game.

---

I see your point, but that is why the CIA can't be trusted to self-report truthfully (just like you have to take a defendant's testimony with a grain of salt unless corroborated by others). We have to go beyond the Congressional committees (even though they swear oaths when they testify), and have non-CIA people embedded at the Agency to watch the watchmen. It's also like SOX compliance, public companies have to hire a third-party audit firm for the accounting - they just can't tell the SEC to trust them that it's all good.  

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.

We've already lost the war on terror

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_secret_story_behind
http://dirtywars.org/
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176778712/the-way-of-the-knife-soldiers-spies-and-shadow-wars

Let's be honest, even Al Qaeda + Saddam + Kim at the apexes of their power did not really constitute an existential threat to the US and our interests. They are vile and inconvenient and sometime lethal and would be better behind bars, but they can't end our way of life. The Soviets could have ended us at a moment's notice, and we lived under that cloud for over 30 years. We bulked up our military and engaged in plenty of proxy dirty wars to gain some leverage, but we didn't reinvent our entire security apparatus and turn our backs on what made us great to try to destroy communism everywhere it bred.

But that is exactly what we have done post-9/11. The CIA changed from an intelligence gathering outfit (that was Congressionally prohibited from assassinating or torturing anyone, although they probably did it from time to time) into a shadow parallel military. Both they and the Pentagon now have Presidential authority to kill anyone, anywhere. Obama's admin. claims that B.O. wants to be the last word on the decisions so he can personally make sure that we are only killing people that we really must kill. And he is the Chosen One, so we can trust that he is making the right call every time - even though the info that he is basing the decision on is pre-filtered and doctored by military handlers whose career progression is based on body counts. Hey Mr. ConLaw prof - that is why we have courts, juries, and trials to reduce the risk of bias and error (and our courts still get plenty of cases wrong too, even capital punishments, so how will you and your boys do better?). Now there is no due process, no evidence sharing, just a drone strike or a wetwork team kicking down a door in the middle of the night.

The terrorists know they could never end the USA, even if their dreams came true and they got a hold of fissile material and diplomat access to our homeland. The USA is a lot more than just our land, buildings, people, and money. The USA is an idea, and a set of values worth practicing and propagating (and in some cases fighting for). The American ideas of justice, human rights, and egalitarianism are almost unprecedented in history - and that is what we've lost. The terrorists didn't take it from us, we jettisoned it of our own accord. Ostensibly to make us safer, but it was ultimately our call. And a liberal president did a lot of the damage. As Jeremy Scahill said, Obama's sad legacy is selling undemocratic, un-American behaviors to the liberal base. Sure the economy is top on our minds, and no one cares of some nameless ragheads get whacked, so we are guilty too because we didn't protest when Obama betrayed America's values (at the very least, he rolled over when the military-intelligence community wanted to surpass the Bush years and cross the line). Scahill is legit and trustworthy - he is the guy who exposed Blackwater's BS in Iraq, and has taken on warlords for years (fighting the sword with the pen).

We crossed that line so far we can't even see it in the dust behind us. Some might say it's no big deal, and it's not like we set up death camps. But is the bar that low? Over a hundred human beings are being held indefinitely at Gitmo without charge and without disclosing evidence against them. If they are so dangerous, then put them on trial and prove it. We kidnapped and exported hundreds of terror "suspects" to repressive nations to be tortured (ironically Syria helped us with that during the Bush years, and the money we paid them for services rendered probably bought weapons that are now being used against the rebels). Our most elite soldiers have the authority to raid any private home in Afghanistan just because some shady informants claimed that a baddie lives there (when in fact they are just using the US to settle a blood feud). And with the Al-Awlaki case, our government has sanctioned the killing of a US citizen overseas in total violation of their civil rights and international law. And what was his crime? Hate speech. Similar speech that the KKK, redneck militias, and even some radio hosts routinely get away with. But they're not Muslims. What's worse is I just learned the US also drone killed Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and also US citizen (see Democracy Now link). What was his crime? As far as I know, he had the wrong father. He "may" become a threat some day. What the hell are we thinking? What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You can't be guilty of something you haven't done yet. It's pathetic that we even need to be having this discussion.

What kind of nation does those things? Red China - guilty on some counts but not all. Iran - ditto. Cuba - they're the Red Cross compared to us. Maybe the USSR and Nazi Germany are the only modern regimes that come close. If we have resorted to such tactics to "defend ourselves against radical Islam", then we have lost the war on terror. And now our jingoism and vengeance are coming down on Tsarnaev. He is going to get mob justice at best, and it's scary to hear the things that even some prominent politicians and media personalities are saying about what we should do to him.

Yes, I know that some of those outrageous tactics have "done some good" for us, killed "bad people", and maybe averted attacks (or maybe they didn't). But what about all the side effects? As I said, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and drones are some of the top reasons why Muslims hate us, and are powerful Jihadi recruiting tools. A US hit squad accidentally took out an Afghan police commander and his family (including 2 pregnant women), who was accused of being a Taliban from bad intel. When the soldiers realized it, they tried to sanitize the crime scene and told the town that the Taliban actually killed the family, but the truth got out. He and his family risked their lives for years to help the US fight the Taliban, but now after this tragedy and outrage, they are so mad they want to blow up Americans. We are losing the war on terror when we turn devoted friends into enraged enemies.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG08Df01.html (another indication that we have lost: this story is totally absent in mainstream Western media, assuming it's true)

Maybe some are giving Osama too much credit, but accounts suggest that he knew Al Qaeda could never defeat America and establish a global Caliphate. But he wanted to execute some sufficiently shocking attacks to whip America into a panicked frenzy. We would bankrupt ourselves foolishly trying to defend every square inch of our land (remember how we even stationed troops at the Mall of America after 9/11?). And our hubris would lead us to invade Muslim lands like the Crusaders and imperialists who came before us. We would have to fight on their terms, and they knew they could outlast us as we sacrifice our brave young men to an unwinnable situation. Terrorism (and even guerrilla war to some extent) is not about destroying one's enemy. It's about generating enough shock and fear to get your enemy to make bad decisions and engage in detrimental behavior. Then you just sit back and let your enemy do the work for you. And we're doing a heckuva job with that. Muslim extremists have suffered heavy losses in this war, and Al Qaeda is barely what it was in 2001, but the America idea is the bigger loser.

Michael Scheuer on Osama and the Mideast

This was one of the most refreshing foreign policy interviews I've heard in a while, from Prof. Michael Scheuer of G'Town who used to head up the CIA's Bin Laden group (nicknamed "The Manson Family" for how fanatically they performed their jobs). I guess you might think he was a failure for that, but he informed the Pentagon of OBL's precise location on 8 occasions (of course no way to know if they were right), and the Clinton admin. declined to give the green light for their own reasons. In 2007, Osama himself said that the two Americans who understood him the most were Noam Chomsky and Scheuer (make of that what you will).

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201102231000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

Scheuer said that as early as 1997, Osama's grand strategy was to foment political discord in the US and alienate us from our allies over our foreign policy, stretch our military-intel apparatus thin trying to chase Al Qaeda, and bankrupt us in foreign quagmires. If that is true, then the self-proclaimed greatest nation in history strutted into a major bear trap set by a guy hiding in a cave. We're not on our last legs yet, but we're not winning either (especially when you consider the price we've paid so far for minor gains). He also said that Osama is more of a smart, dedicated "worthy enemy" like Robert E. Lee than a delusional lunatic like Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately the former is a lot harder to defeat.

Osama's top enemies are/were the non-Islamic dictators in the Mideast (especially the House of Saud, Saddam, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, so this has been a great month for him) and Israel. The US and the West are indirect enemies due to our support for said enemies. But one wonders whether our choice of allies could have prevented Osama from becoming militant. After all, he did fight with us at one time, so we must not have been such intolerable infidels. Just as our "trusted Iraqi sources" told the neo-cons exactly what they wanted to hear, that Iraq had WMD for their own interests, Israel and our dictator buddies in the Mideast (who view grassroots Islamic movements as their top threats to power) have fed us crap for years that Al Qaeda hates us because of our values, and won't stop until we're dead or converted. Well if that's the case then it's personal; we better hate them back and wage an endless, amorphous war against them. Good vs. evil, our civilization is at stake, yadda yadda.

Yes Al Qaeda may want a global caliphate, because that is what Muhammad instructed Muslims to do (not necessarily through violence). I want a new job, and even if I try very hard to get one there's no telling if and when it will happen. Some US evangelicals hope to bring about the conditions that unleash Armageddon - not just prepare for the return of the lord, but actively make it happen. Then the US and all nations will be destroyed, and everyone but the true believers die horrible deaths (including the Jews they profess to support). So should we imprison the evangelicals for conspiracy against the US, and send them to Gitmo as religious fanatics? There is no point fearing and defending against every extreme religious endgame. But hey, it makes for a great bogeyman for people like Bush and Beck to peddle on the ignorant and fearful.

All this masks the truths that are politically inconvenient for our leaders, and hinders their propaganda efforts inspiring us to sacrifice for this righteous conflict. We and our allies created Al Qaeda and Osama. Instead of diffusing the causes of their grievances, we have chosen to fight them head on, and on their terms. And we have taken this problematic path because we care more about propping up dictators in order to keep the Israelis happy, Muslims down, and oil exports up (an industry whose profits go to only a small subset of people), rather than forging true partnerships, cultural understanding, political reforms, and economic development. The region is still affected by the legacies of colonialism; they need a Marshall Plan, not Rendition and sanctions. If we took the higher path, maybe Exxon and Lockheed's coffers would be smaller, but the people over there would have a better quality of life and viable political channels of redress (precluding the need to embrace violent Islam), which ensures greater stability and security for our interests in the end.

-------

Scheuer also made pretty good comments about our precarious support of Israel. Any nation founded on the premise that a deity granted a chosen tribe exclusive rights to a patch of land in an unbreakable, eternal covenant (and much of their government is populated by leaders who espouse this belief) is probably not a great partner for rational, 21st Century diplomacy. The US supposedly trusts in god, but no one except Palin types would claim that god cares whether the US is around or not. Scheuer was the first person I've heard to say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, contrary to most public statements. He of course believes that Israel has the right to defend itself from threats, but no nation has a "right" to exist, and that is an important distinction. It must be true, otherwise the USSR would still be around, and we couldn't have forced Nazi Germany to surrender. Nations exist as long as they can, but if they grow weak or piss off other nations enough, they're going down. That is the way of the world, so why the double-standard for Israel? Because god said so? And we call the Muslims crazy? This is important because it's much harder to think clearly when existential sentiments are always clouding one's judgment.

Regarding Libya, it's amazing that Obama hasn't publicly condemned Qaddafi's violence against his people and called for him to step down (the Arab League already has). Clinton spoke out a bit, and also previously called on the Iranian people to rise up against their murderous regime. That's easy for her to say 10,000 miles away in safety and comfort, but these are not light decisions for the people on the ground. If they want to revolt, they have to go all the way or it's their death and doom for their loved ones. Despots stay in power by paying for loyalty and crushing opponents, especially those who dare to speak out. There's no turning back, and if we realize that we should really salute the courageous young people who risked everything to defy the odds and topple dictators backed by thousands of gunmen and billions of petro-dollars. The typical American can't even be bothered to drive down the street and vote once a year. It's a real shame that decades of our foreign policy blunders have rendered us nearly impotent during this critical time in Mideast history.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/too_little_not_yet_too_late

Why has the US put more heat on Mubarak, when he was responsible for far less bloodshed (at least Mubarak didn't send warplanes to bomb unarmed people in his own cities)? Libya cut a deal with Bush and others in the West to get UN sanctions lifted and to get off the terror blacklist. Qaddafi supposedly agreed to cease his WMD programs, pay reparations to the victims of the Pan Am bombing, and release some Western captives. He must have got a lot in return, including diplomatic cover. And when the EU buys 85% of Libya's substantial oil exports, that's a lot of capital to cash in during a crisis. That shows you how our foreign energy dependence can cripple our diplomatic options and stifle our principles. It's clear that Qaddafi is done; it just matters how much he will kill and destroy in the process. It's better for us and the region to limit Qaddafi's damage now. We enforced no-fly zones over Serbia and Iraq, why not with Libya? Our fleet is already over there. Many Libyan pilots bravely defected and refused to carry out missions to bomb protesters. But at least the US/NATO can embargo incoming shipments of resources and mercenaries from Qaddafi's African allies.

Why do Muslims hate us? Not because of our democracy, shopping malls, and women's rights (well not primarily). It's because we choose to befriend homicidal klepto-sociopaths over the millions of honest, poor people languishing under their boots. It's not just Obama but a long tradition.

The CIA in the War on Terror

"And I think what one of the things this incident shows is just how - I mean, you could say desperate, but certainly eager - the CIA is for this kind of intelligence. He was promising kind of the big haul. He was going to give the location or at least give good intelligence about perhaps the number two operative in al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri. So the CIA brought its number two official from Kabul all the way to Khost for the meeting... I mean, [the drone bombing program is] nothing short of a war. It's a campaign going on, a military, quasi-military campaign that the CIA is carrying out and which the CIA is quite proud of, actually. They think that this is kind of the most effective thing that the U.S. government has right now to deal with al-Qaida."
- M Mazzetti, NYT nat. security correspondent

"If you have different personalities down range, everybody's worried about their rice bowls, and the next thing you know you have this kind of problem. People aren't talking to each other... I don't think we have any choice [that the CIA has to become a stronger paramilitary entity]. I do think we need to get a lot better at it. I don't think we have completed the evolution from a Cold War entity to what we need... I think it's going to take a consensus between the Congress and the president to really say we got to make some fundamental changes... We're still essentially using the same machine we had on September 10th, 2001."
- C Faddis, CIA

--------

Maybe you heard about the "double agent" Jordanian doctor who killed 6 CIA employees and a Jordanian Intel officer at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. Agents were supposedly trying to turn him into an asset, because he claimed to have knowledge of the location of a top Al Qaeda figure. But instead, he detonated a suicide vest during his debriefing, after he was invited to the base and not frisked. So instead of finding Zawahiri, we lost decades of cumulative intelligence expertise and called our entire human intel apparatus in that country into question. The Jordanian used to work in Palestinian refugee camps, and probably witnessed a lot of the suffering caused by the Arab-Israeli conflicts. He was a well-known anti-Western Islamic blogger too, but Jordanian Intel and the CIA seemed to think they had "de-radicalized" him, and he continued to blog just to maintain appearances.

Our new War on Terror is a bizarre chapter in the history of combat, because literally we have the conventional armed forces, private mercenaries, and the CIA all waging parallel wars and conducting independent operations in the same theater of battle. And in some cases, maybe the parties are not fully cooperating or even aware of the other's actions, but in fact are competing for targets/intel and unintentionally undermining overall strategy. Maybe you heard about reports of Blackwater Worldwide employees working with the CIA on raids in Iraq, or in some cases working on their own (under who's orders?), which has angered many in DC. Actually no different than the insurgents, the mercenaries were not trained by our government and have no legal accountability. Their only legitimacy is a contract from Baghdad (that we forced them to sign) permitting them to do business in-country until a given expiration date. Yet they are highly paid, heavily armed, and (were) pursuing high-value targets in Iraq. Since Afghanistan is even more Wild West (they don't even have a single km of railroad), I can only imagine what unauthorized activities may go unmonitored. Though due to the terrain and lack of infrastructure, aerial drones seem to be the tool of choice.

I guess a lot of the War on Terror is assassinations and intel gathering (and torture), so of course the CIA should play a prominent role, but they are also used to working without rules and oversight. They have already received some bad publicity over rendition flights, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo, but they have probably also gathered intel (by what means, we may never know) that helped prevent some attacks on the West. Prior to our full invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, the CIA and special ops forces did heavily pursue Al Qaeda at the end of 2001 and decimate much of Osama's core members (they may have even wounded him at Tora Bora). But political hesitation and territorial disputes by Bush's cabinet stalled their advance and allowed the Al Qaeda survivors to escape to Pakistan.

Also the CIA may not have the best reputation in Afghanistan due to the events at the end of the Soviet occupation. While the CIA unofficially armed and trained the Mujahadeen, through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, to improve their insurgent capabilities (as depicted in "Charlie Wilson's War", and see my previous posting: http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2008/05/charlie-wilsons-war-and-bs-revisionist.html), after the Soviet withdrawal the US let the nation deteriorate into civil war and Islamic fundamentalism. Stemming from Vietnam, I think the US defense establishment is very sensitive about being labeled as people who abandon their friends. But the perception in Afghanistan was that the CIA was only interested in using the Muslims to spill blood fighting the rival Soviets, and afterward the US couldn't care less about their problems.

I have no doubt that many in the CIA are dedicated patriots with great talent for their difficult job, and they have saved American lives over the years. But they also have that reputation (deservedly in some cases) of just using people to accomplish their narrow objectives. As depicted in films like "Spy Game", "Syriana", and "Body of Lies", the CIA are arrogant, cocksure, scheming, pathologically ambitious, and uncaring. Flesh and blood people become expendable "assets", little respect is shown to allies, pissing contests abound, and the mission always comes first despite what broken laws or collateral damage may ensue. Obviously Hollywood's depiction is sensational, but also plays out in reality: the Iran-Contra scandal, and more recently Extraordinary Rendition, and just last year 2 high-level employees were dismissed for a sex scandal and corruption.

If many Americans are already suspicious of the CIA after Watergate and whatnot, just imagine how the rest of the world, and specifically parts of the Muslim world caught in our wars, feel about the CIA. I know it is a dirty job and the CIA works with lying, treacherous scumbags. You use me and I use you. I think we all accept that as part of the spy game, but then they shouldn't expect locals to go out of their way to help us, especially when helping us could be viewed as a betrayal of their faith and heritage. They know that we don't give a hoot about them, and when they are no longer useful to us, we will cut them loose (like all the Iraqi translators who risked their lives and their families to help us, and we don't even compensate their next of kin with money or visas after they are killed). Potential assets and their affiliates also know that we are very interested in them, which may leave us vulnerable as we saw in Afghanistan. Many foreign intelligence agencies that we work with also probably know that the CIA looks down on them and won't share much useful information. In a more public example, our close ally Italy has issued warrants for the arrests of several CIA operatives relating to the kidnapping of an Islamic cleric in Italy. Though there probably was a secret NATO agreement to permit CIA agents to "do their thing" in Europe, Italian laws were broken. Everyone's a liar and there is no trust; actually it's a miracle that anyone can get reliable human intel these days. Maybe the CIA officers who were killed by the Jordanian bomber were so ambitious to get credit for assassinating some Al Qaeda big shot, that they ignored their better judgment and suspicions about him. Obviously they violated base security protocol to allow the bomber to do such damage, and we may never know what really happened.

But tragic events such as this, or the public burning of private security guards in Iraq a few years ago, should show that occupied peoples do not approve of some of our methods. I would hope that the Cold War taught us that it's wrong for global powers to meddle in Third World nations and treat their people like chess pawns in a high-stakes power game. True alliances and partnerships are built on honesty and respect. That is why I am dubious of our uniquely intimate alliance with Israel, since Israel doesn't seem to heed our concerns very often (calls to end heavy shelling in Gaza or settlement building in the Occupied Territories often go ignored), and Mossad agents are occasionally caught spying in the US. If that is how Israel treats its closest friend, I wouldn't want to be her enemy. But getting back to the CIA in the War on Terror, I know a lot of the challenges they face are unprecedented. So maybe new approaches and more sensitive techniques are appropriate, instead of the same old macho spycraft. Fortunately much of our intel is gathered electronically, thereby reducing the human evil factor. I know CIA agents can't coddle terrorists and take them to tablecloth dinners (well, the Algiers station chief dismissed over his sex scandal often took assets to strip shows to turn them), but we have to move beyond turf wars and waterboarding. Many government agencies resist change or outside advice, and I think the CIA takes it to another level. After almost a decade since 9/11, they and the military still have a recruiting shortage of Arabic speakers and Mideast experts.

Expanding these points to the larger War on Terror, it is clear that there is a sea change. Domestic law enforcement apprehended more suspected terrorists (and foiled potential attacks) in 2009 than the previous 4 years combined. This coincides with increased covert drone attacks and raids on the Pakistani border that claimed to kill Al Qaeda leaders. In fact, under Obama we have killed more alleged Qaeda leaders than during Bush's last 3 years in office. So Al Qaeda is hurt badly, getting desperate, and forced to adapt. They are stepping up their plans to attack the West, and since all failed, we can only assume that they were more rushed and frantic with their planning. But another new development is that the alleged attackers were mostly non-Arabs from Al Qaeda affiliate groups. They visited Somalia or Yemen. So Al Qaeda rebuilt after 9/11 and gained enough strength to destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan in recent years. But now they are getting hit harder, and forced to go underground again. But they are sending their people to friendly organizations in other parts of the world under less US scrutiny. And that seems to be where this new breed of attacker is emerging from. This illustrates the problem with counter-terrorism and unconventional war in this globalized world. We might smash the vase, but the fragments of porcelain spread everywhere and slip through our fingers. So now we have a bigger mess on our hands. Maybe it was better when Al Qaeda was more complacent and contained in the Pakistan border areas. Just like our mistake with Saddam and Iraq, sometimes it's better to tolerate a monster in a cage, then try to completely destroy that monster and create dozens of new ones.

" 'In essence, these [Al Qaeda] operatives are being sent out as force multipliers, to plus up or strengthen or to enhance the capabilities of local and region allies,' says [Georgetown Univ. security expert B Hoffman]. He believes they are attempting to 'overwhelm the U.S. and other enemies with a strategy that amounts to death by 1,000 cuts.' "
-NPR

So even though we lucked out on Christmas, we can't be lucky forever. Maybe we should rethink our tactics, because a minimal, contained, centralized terror threat, while worse than an absence of terrorism, is much better than a dispersed, multiplying terror threat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436089
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122319659
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/12317/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004700.html?wprss=rss_politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031904134.html
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/12/worldupdates/2010-01-12T023641Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-453165-1&sec=Worldupdates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6732897.stm

Israel has attacked the UN more than Al-Qaeda

Last year, Al-Qaeda's #2 Zawahiri denounced the UN as the "enemy of Islam" for helping create and legitimize the state of Israel in the past, as well as condoning Western militarism in Muslim lands. We know that Al Qaeda in Iraq attacked the UN headquarters in Baghdad in 2003, killing 22 (including the special envoy to Iraq). After that, the UN withdrew completely from Iraq for years. More recently, Qaeda also claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at a UN compound in Algiers that killed 41 (of them, 18 UN staffers) in 2007. These acts against defenseless victims were of course barbaric and cowardly.

http://www.fao.org/world/Regional/RNE/UNNews/news123_en.htm

But strangely, it is actually the Israeli military that has attacked the UN more times since 9/11, albeit less "deliberately" and with fewer casualties.

[The Israeli Defense Forces] don't care if they kill a UN man or anybody on the Lebanese side. For them, their own life is sacred, their own troops are sacred. They have a mission, and if the UN gets in the way of their efforts over there, if the UN gets hit, so be it.

- Timur Goskel, professor at Notre Dame Univ. and former UNIFIL advisor (UN peacekeepers in Lebanon), 2006

Maybe you remember during the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006, then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan chastised Israel for what appeared to be a deliberate targeting of a legally sanctioned UN observation post in South Lebanon that killed 4 neutral observers. The UN has been there since the first Israel-Lebanon war decades ago. The maps haven't changed and that outpost never moved. There were no Hizbullah fighters in the vicinity, yet the IDF decided to fire. But of course PM Olmert demanded than Annan retract his outrageous accusation.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/26/kofi_annan_says_israels_fatal_attack

And earlier this month in the Gaza war, Israeli armor allegedly fired on a UN aid convoy, killing a truck driver (a Palestinian contractor hired by the UN). This incident took place during an agreed-upon 3-hour cease fire. The UN had informed Israel of the aid convoy's scheduled trip, and were given the green light to proceed. Their vehicles are clearly marked with UN blue, and the IDF was given its GPS coordinates. However, Israel claims that it was actually a Hamas sniper that killed the truck driver, possibly in an attempt to set up the IDF for a bad PR incident (as if the IDF needed any outside help in that regard). Even giving Israel the benefit of the doubt here, what resulted was the UNRWA mission suspending all aid shipments into Gaza since then (they are set to resume tomorrow). So needy people continued to go without. If a neutral third party is "aiding" your enemy, would you fire at them as deterrence? Did the IDF want to send a message to the UN, and did the Lebanon incident have a similar purpose? So are their wars against all Palestinians/Lebanese, or just the terror groups?

A few days later, it got worse. Israel attacked UN-run elementary schools at 3 separate locations over 36 hours. One site was vacated, but the others housed hundreds of terrified Gaza residents seeking refuge from the fighting. Over 40 died. Again, these buildings are clearly-marked and the UN gave Israel their GPS locations long ago. The IDF attempted to justify its actions by stating that they observed Hamas mortar fire originating from inside one of the UN schools. UN officials on the ground said that they were 99.9% sure there were no Hamas there and no mortars were fired (and they have no reason to lie for Hamas). Laughably, the IDF further tried to defend the attack by releasing video of Palestinian militants firing a rocket from one of the schools and then fleeing. However, the video was from 2007! In that case, we better bomb Saudia Arabia, because we have past video of Osama bin Laden walking the streets of Riyadh. Even if Hamas was there, how can they defend their attacks? It is a neutral site, off limits like an embassy. For that matter, what if Hamas militants were alleged to be hiding in a US consulate building? Would the IDF still bomb? Technically that is a violation of international law and an act of war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=1053455&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='UN+rejects+IDF+claim+Gaza+militants+operated+from+bombed-out+school'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

The Israeli army however said the school was being used to store weapons, and the casualties were as a result of secondary explosions caused by the the munitions stored in the building. After a brief investigation this story changed. The army did admit the Israel Air Force targeted the school, but said it was returning fire. It had no comment on the fact that several hundred refugees had taken shelter at the school.
- IsraelNews.net

Israel scorns Hamas and Hizbullah for being so dastardly to hide behind civilian shields, and they're right. If only we could divorce combatants from populated areas, but in the post-Cold War world, most if not all conflicts will be asymmetrical and urban. When you decide to wage war (and let's look past the BS about being "forced" into war - it's always a conscious, voluntary choice), you have to know that many innocents will suffer (especially children), so hopefully that can serve as a deterrent. They should have learned all this at the military academy, but maybe as Prof. Goskel claims, the problem is that Israel just doesn't give a damn. Israel says they're being being set up to take the blame for civilian deaths as part of the propaganda war. But no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger. They know civilians are there, and yet they choose to fire anyway, just to maybe kill a few insignificant foot soldiers, or at best some "high value target" that will just get replaced by an even meaner SOB, as depicted in the film "Munich". They could apprehend and convict them through established legal channels, or wait to attack until their targets are in the clear, or if that doesn't happen then just let it go - because the cost of killing innocents (thereby creating much backlash and future terrorists in the process) is always higher than letting one bad man go free. Therefore, they don't get to blame anyone else for their murders. Not surprisingly, in 2003 27 elite Israeli pilots/officers had enough of their leaders' immoral tactics, and published a formal protest refusing to take part in assassination missions over urban zones where civilians will invariably get hurt (see article at end).

And just today, Israeli artillery fire near the UN Gaza headquarters (housing over 700 refugees) started a blaze that destroyed their food/fuel storage warehouse. This time, they openly acknowledged that it was a "mistake", though again insisted that Hamas fire came from the area. It is suspected that phosphorous incendiary rounds were used, which easily cause fires to spread in cities (and therefore their use in urban zones is prohibited). Tons of vital aid supplies went up in smoke. A Red Cross/Crescent hospital was also hit, and the Palestinian death toll rose above 1,000 dead/5,000 wounded. Israeli losses still stand at 13, with 4 dead from friendly fire.

The belief is that Israel is stepping up military operations ahead of agreeing to a ceasefire in the days immediately before Tuesday's inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president.
- The Daily Mail

So once again, it seems like politics trump decency. Isn't an escalation of violence prior to a ceasefire defeating the very purpose of that ceasefire? I guess they just want to get those last shots in, and probably Hamas will too (well, does the fact that Hamas still launches rockets at the end of the war signify the folly and failure of the war?). And I guess Israel wants to make a good impression on the new president by pausing its war for his inauguration. How thoughtful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1117144/Israels-strike-UN-headquarters-Gaza-indefensible-says-Gordon-Brown.html

So if the gunmen and thugs under Milosevic, Haitian/Somali warlords, and even Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Taleban can mostly respect UN neutrality in their conflicts, then what is Israel's problem? After all, they are the most democratic and technologically advanced nation in the Middle East. Pretty much the only other places in the world where UN staff are under such direct assault are Congo and Sudan. Ignominious company for sure. And in those nations, UN soldiers are authorized to actually engage local forces to protect civilians, so they have chosen to be part of the fray. No UN worker ever fired a shot at an Israeli.

-----
27 Israeli pilots refuse raid duty
Question morality of hitting civilians
By Dan Ephron, Boston Globe Correspondent, 9/25/2003
JERUSALEM -- Twenty-seven Israeli air force pilots, who are considered the most elite servicemen of the Israeli Defense Forces, pledged in an open letter published yesterday that they no longer would take part in raids on Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, describing them as "illegal and immoral."
The letter, published on the websites of several Israeli newspapers, appeared to give new impetus to the movement of several hundred soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on moral grounds. It also marked the first time a group of air force pilots, who could face ouster or military trials, have banded together to take such a stand.
Among those who signed were a brigadier general who took part in Israel's 1981 raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility, two colonels, and four lieutenant colonels. About half of them fly warplanes and attack helicopters in reserve duty, while the rest are inactive, according to a senior air force officer.
Military officials described the letter as politically motivated and insisted that the Israeli military goes to great lengths to avoid harming civilians, even when Palestinian militants hide in their midst. One analyst said the letter carried symbolic weight, but would be significant from an operational standpoint only if dozens of other pilots refused to serve.
"We veteran and active duty pilots . . . are against carrying out illegal and immoral attacks of the kind that Israel is conducting in the territories," the letter reads. "We . . . refuse to take part in air force attacks on civilian population centers.
"We [pilots], who feel that the Israeli Defense Forces and the air force are an integral part of us, refuse to continue attacking innocent civilians," said the letter, which also condemns Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Several pilots who signed the letter could not be reached for interviews.
Air force pilots have had a large role in the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians that erupted three years ago, most controversially in track-and-kill missions against key militants. Israel has assassinated scores of militants in missile strikes and bombing missions in crowded areas of the West Bank and Gaza, but scores of innocent civilians have also been killed and wounded in the raids.
In one particularly devastating attack in July 2002, Israel dropped a 1-ton bomb on a building in Gaza where Salah Shehadeh, a top member of the Islamic militant group Hamas, was hiding. He was thought to have orchestrated attacks that killed dozens of Israelis. The bomb killed Shehadeh, his wife and daughter, and 12 other civilians.
Reuven Pedatzur, a former fighter pilot who is now a defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, said the Shehadeh assassination was a turning point for Israeli pilots. "I think that was the moment many pilots began asking questions about what they're doing and why civilians are being killed," he said.
Pedatzur said the letter was significant because air force pilots are the military's "cream of the crop" and because pilots have never protested collectively in such a manner. But a top air force commander said that the protesters represented a small minority of fighter pilots and that most of them had not been taking part in missions during the past three years of fighting.
Ido Nehushtan, an air force brigadier general, said pilots participating in missions against Palestinian militants had the complicated task of trying to thwart terrorists who operate in civilian centers. He said that pilots have the authority to abort missions if they believe civilians might be harmed, but that the air force could not live with a situation in which individual pilots decide not to take part in a whole category of operations.
"I can tell you with full confidence that we do everything possible to avoid harming civilians," Nehushtan said late yesterday, hours after the letter was published.
He said the pilots published their letter in the media without first presenting it to their commanders.
Pedatzur said the Air Force must decide between ousting the pilots from their units or trying them for insubordination. Military judges have jailed dozens of reservists in ground forces who have refused to serve in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"This is a serious dilemma, because these aren't just privates in regular units; they're air force pilots," Pedatzur said. "If you put them on trial, the atmosphere in the air force could become very sour, and this wouldn't be good for the military in general."
In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was killed in an early morning gun battle between Palestinians and Israeli troops searching for weapons-smuggling tunnels along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
The firefight erupted when 20 Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers entered the Rafah refugee camp. Mohammed Hamdan, 16, was killed in the clash, hospital officials told the Associated Press, and more than a dozen Palestinians were wounded. Palestinian witnesses said troops razed two houses.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Osama

Why it’s useless and often counter-productive to simply label such men as “evil”, without trying to understand how he came to be and why people believe in him

Non-intellectuals (and even some academics) often dismiss dark figures in history such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, and Bin Laden as simply 'evil men', and it's a sin if one attempts to describe them in any softer, nuanced terms. They committed crimes against humanity because they were psychotic, end of story. I find such characterizations to be elementary and basically useless. Actually it can be detrimental for the historical record and for posterity to paint in such broad brush strokes, thereby masking the details. If we don't learn from their examples, we may allow new Hitlers to emerge.

I shouldn't have to state this, but since Justin might accuse me of something foolish again, I DEPLORE the atrocities committed by such men, as I deplore the unjust deaths committed by any nation/individual (suicide bombers from Qaeda, cluster bombing urban areas during gulf war 1, etc.). However, it does no good to label political figures as simply and purely 'good' or 'evil'. A better goal would be to understand the conditions that fostered their transformations/policies/views, how they think, how they came to power, how they appealed to so many, and how to prevent future tyrants from doing harm. Sun Tsu said victory comes by knowing your enemy. To some people, it may be offensive (or even profane) to 'empathize' with a Hitler or 'get in he head' of a BL, but we have criminologists, profilers, and psychologists in the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for precisely that reason. We do not know how many crimes their analyses have prevented. They are a service to us citizens, especially in our violent culture. If we understand a person, we can better predict what that person will do.

And when we conduct our analysis of BL or other modern terrorists, what we discover may shock us, shame us, or dispel some myths/false assumptions. If we truly seek understanding, and wish to defeat such a foe, we should not censor accurate data that happens to be uncomfortable/troubling, or sack the messengers of such info. As was the case during the Iraq WMD debacle, we know the dangers of filtering only favorable intelligence/advice that conveniently agrees with your theories, and ignore the rest. Citing the Newsmax example, Sheuer worked on the BL task force for 3 years at the agency. He has more knowledge of the man than all the staff at Newsmax combined. Who are they to call him wrong with marginal evidence? They don't say that specifically, but the tone/objective of the partisan article is to debunk him as controversial, self-serving, and unreliable (especially since his book was used against bush in the campaign, and he dared to bring up Israel and implicate our alliance as a major impetus for terror & 9/11). This summer on CNN I saw a colonel being interviewed on the ground in Iraq. He said the insurgents are dastardly, but unfortunately 'damn good'. He gave credit where it was due, just as Sheuer said that BL's struggle was 'admirable' in the eyes of many. Bush says we're safer but not yet safe - but 'misunderestimating' our opponents does not contribute to our safety.

Mischaracterizing Bin Laden, or refusing to delve deeper into what makes him tick (because he is so odious), has already cost us. The huge bounty on his head didn't work because it was based on unrealistic expectations. It seems like a no-brainer to us for a poor Pakistani to rat him out and become instantly rich, but obviously our values are different, and there are more factors at play than wealth. Which is the point: BL is repulsive considering our standards and experience with the man, but he's a hero in other parts of the world. Why is that? When we answer that question, and can accurately profile BL and Qaeda, we will be so much better off. No amount of guns, bombs, and tanks can equal that type of honest intelligence. We have to play it straight and assess the man's strengths and weaknesses. I do not know about the ongoing efforts to infiltrate Qaeda and other terror groups. Heck, if we can send Lee Harvey Oswald to the USSR and back safely, we can get some operatives in Qaeda (maybe we do, but the de-centralized nature of Qaeda makes it so hard to topple).

I feel that an element of ethnocentrism and racism in the USA is retarding our efforts to subvert Islamic terror, at least in the political-intelligence community (the content of Newsmax is a perfect example, links below). I know __ is Muslim, and maybe more RT members too, so I would be curious to hear their thoughts, but I know this is a digression. In the White House there is a certain arrogance concerning foes like BL and Saddam. They are lowly trash, mere mosquitoes compared to the giant American elephant. This lack of respect may cost us as well, it definitely has in Iraq, where we 'misunderestimated' the insurgency threat in '03 and it has claimed hundreds if not thousands of lives, and tremendously hampered the reconstruction effort.

And why suddenly are all global terrorists in league with each other? They’re everywhere and nowhere, lurking and waiting. They’re all evildoers who hate freedom and our way of life, hate America/Israel/Judeo-Christianity, and won't rest until we're all praying to Allah or dead? It’s a war of cultures? Do we really believe that the Beslan murderers have much in common with the Bali bombers, BL, and even the Iraqi insurgency (which itself is so tremendously diverse because we've managed to unite foreign fighters, Jihadist zealots, Iraqi nationalists, Qaeda, ex-Baathists, and miscellaneous soldiers of fortune in a common cause against us)? Their major link is their religion and their propensity for violence, but their grievances, methods, goals, and backgrounds are obviously different and sometimes incongruous. So what about homegrown Caucasian terrorists like McVeigh, columbine, KKK; do they fit the mold? But if we continue to lump all terrorists together, distort their situations/aims, make sweeping assumptions concerning their values/motives, and dismiss their subtleties, I fear for our future.

On the campaign trail, Cheney continually preached that our terrorist enemies can't be reasoned with, won't negotiate, so we must destroy them before they do us in. but how does he know, have they ever tried to negotiate? They just hold steadfast in their narrow worldview, even if other credible data/opinion suggests differently (maybe that's why bush's new cabinet has even more yes-men). God forbid we actually try to understand the legit/perceived grievances the terrorists fight against (like corrupt Saudi rulers trading with America and allowing a US military presence in holy land) and the injustices their peoples have suffered (like Chechnya, Palestine). Surely the terrorists are not innocent sympathy cases (but the extent may vary from group to group). Revenge does not address injustice, and violence does not atone for violence. But if exploring the mind and rhetoric of a terrorist is just too blasphemous, we can continue to spin our wheels and just label them as murderous Islamofascist thugs. Some elements of the Muslim world will continue to label us as imperialist infidel crusaders. No progress will be made, no peace will be possible, and innocents will continue to suffer while we kill each other. But I have to believe that is not the only way.

So all I’m saying about BL and Qaeda is simple: lets be honest about who they are, what they do, and what they want. Let’s not dismiss any potentially useful data just because it's hard to swallow, nor should we simply accept the party line at face value and dismiss all the diverse terror groups around the world as basically the same: homicidal barbarians who must be killed before they kill us. Let’s see them as they are - not how we conveniently wish them to be. Let’s understand our foes so we can intelligently thwart them with minimal innocents harmed (and minimal new terrorists spawned), instead of fumbling around in the dark and clinging to myths as we are.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/Bin Laden/who/alQaeda.html

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/7/103252.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/23/115744.shtml

The Sling and the Stone, by Thomas Hammes, USMC

Bush stressing Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12199252

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/25/news/policy.php

“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.”

- George W. Bush, July 2007

Completely ridiculous, and it shows how desperate the Commander in Chief is to maintain some kernels of support for his failed war. We've heard this tune before, namely in the 2003 build-up. Once the allegation that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 was mostly refuted, Bush and company denied that they claimed a "direct" link between the two! Currently, the only way he hopes to get the war-weary and incredulous American public and Congress to give him yet more time on Iraq is to exaggerate the Al Qaeda connection. Although he may truly believe that our national security hinges on defeating militants in Iraq, to some of us it comes off as sleazy fear-mongering and preying on people’s lingering 9/11 trauma. He has already beaten the dead horse of “If we retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home,” yet no credible experts believe this would happen. So just in case we forgot from years of 9/11 fatigue, Bush argues that the current fighters in Iraq are capable of repeating 9/11 should we bail out prematurely. Of course he never considers the possibility that our protracted military presence in the Middle East may actually increase the likelihood of another 9/11 more than our withdrawal.

For Bush to claim that the current group of fighters in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and Osama is like saying present-day Roman Catholics share blame for the Crusades. They might espouse some of the same ideologies of past members, but their goals, capabilities, and demographics are totally different now. Maybe if the new Al Qaeda in Iraq got the chance to attack America with a WMD, they might take it. But even though they may have the desire, they probably don’t have the ability. A lot of people in Muslim ally nations such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia also equally hate America, but are we worried that they will follow us home too? Plus they have more pertinent fish to fry, like winning the power struggle in Iraq. In all likelihood, our vacancy from Iraq will leave a vacuum where the rival factions will battle each other for dominance, not unify to make revenge attacks on America. It will be horrible and bloody, but probably localized, and not spreading all over the Middle East as the Bushies assert. We shouldn’t just abandon and ignore Iraq (even if the going has gotten really tough), and many negative things could happen if we leave them to their own devices, but it doesn’t help Iraqi stability for Bush to harp on unlikely doomsday scenarios.

It is a valid point to make that this new generation of militants and extremists might pose a threat to America some day. And of course the White House will never admit that our invasion and botched occupation of Iraq, as well as our poor conduct in the larger War on Terror, inspired a large number of previously nonviolent/nonaligned people to join or at least condone Al Qaeda in Iraq. If Bush is really serious about defending America from pressing threats, then maybe he should stop digging up the past (especially since 9/11 is irrelevant to the current Iraqi civil war) and start figuring out how to stabilize Iraq and respond to Al Qaeda of TODAY.

The phony Gulf of Tonkin incident brought America into the Vietnam War. Yellow journalism drummed up support for the crooked Spanish-American War. But eventually Truman saw through the smoke and MacArthur’s antics to conclude that the Korean War wasn’t worth expanding the fight to China. And after Pearl Harbor, it was clear to Roosevelt and the US public that we had to stand up to Japanese and Nazi aggression. There are wars of necessity, and then everything else. Some warmongering leaders love to confuse one for the other. Let’s hope that truth does not continue to become a war casualty in Iraq as well.

It’s amazing to witness the nomenclature shift as the Pentagon and White House attempt to characterize our enemies in Iraq, depending on the prevailing political winds. In 2003, they were ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. In 2005, they were “insurgents” (the broadest and probably most accurate description, since the militants in Iraq are far from homogeneous). In 2006, they were sectarian death squads and Iranian proxies. Now in 2007, they are “Al Qaeda” (allegedly hand-in-glove with Osama and Zawahiri). Talk about flip-flopping. Previous reports suggested that fewer than 10% of fighters in Iraq are foreign-born, and only a small portion of the anti-coalition insurgency had any plausible link to Al Qaeda, Zarqawi, and the like. Most of them are not vile, plotting killers like “The Jackal”. Probably they are outraged by Western powers occupying Muslim lands, and will use violence to oust us.

According to Bush, the fact that Osama designated the small-time Jordanian thug Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi as Al Qaeda’s face in Iraq proves the connection between the Iraqi militants and the global struggle against Al Qaeda. It’s true that Zarqawi trained fighters, orchestrated/participated in attacks, and created a climate of fear and mystique around him. But of course Zarqawi did not command the entire Iraqi insurgency, nor all the Jihadist elements in the country. It’s not like he opened up a massive terrorism academy right under the coalition’s nose, and they all pledge allegiance to him. Soldiers of fortune, sectarian militants, and anti-American fighters were passing though Iraq’s porous borders for years – it’s impossible for one man to control such a force. Iraq has become the Mos Eisley Cantina of the Muslim world (pardon the Star Wars nerdism), with a ragtag amalgam of degenerates, Islamists, and other militants each fighting for their specific flag. Some come for Jihad (against Muslim heretics or Westerners alike), some come to fight for Arab autonomy against Crusaders, some come for training/experience to use elsewhere, and some come to sway the balance of power among Iraq’s rival factions (or possibly at the behest of Iran). Some might get involved with “Al Qaeda affiliates”, but they are not exactly regimented and organized.

And even that designation is misleading; what exactly constitutes an Al Qaeda affiliate? I dare anyone in the administration to formulate a coherent answer. But we don’t even have a firm grip of what Al Qaeda is – how can we claim to know that they are actively operating in Iraq? Anyone against us is somehow labeled as Al Qaeda or Iran sympathizers, and part of the greater Axis of Evil. Apparently Hizbullah and Hamas are in league with Al Qaeda and Iran too. Sharing a common goal and enemy doesn’t make people comrades. The US and Russia distrusted (if not hated) each other during WWII, but made a temporary truce to defeat Hitler. After 1944, they went back to hating each other for another 50 years. If somehow Israelis and Americans vacated the Middle East tomorrow, do you think all those terrorist groups would get along in harmony and collectively plot to attack America? They would be too busy fighting each other for supremacy! Some fighters in Iraq bear a “resemblance” to Al Qaeda, in terms of their combat methods, culture, nationality, religious beliefs, and methods of procuring resources. But again, the resemblances are very GENERAL and VAGUE. Depending on how you describe people, you can create similarities out of nothing. Is George Bush an Al Qaeda affiliate just because he is deeply religious, refuses to acknowledge the humanity of his enemies, and uses violence against innocents to achieve political objectives? You get my drift.

In fact, the Zarqawi-Osama relationship is fragile at best. Yes it’s true that the two had met face-to-face on several occasions. Yes it’s true that Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the 2003 US invasion, but operated in the ungoverned areas of Iraq and had no contact with Saddam or Osama. As the insurgency morphed into sectarian civil war, Osama became increasingly disappointed with the loose cannon Zarqawi, who seemed more interested in butchering Shias (possibly in response to the virtual Shia takeover of the Iraqi government) than fighting American imperialists. In 2004, Osama did appoint Zarqawi as Al Qaeda’s representative in Iraq, but Zarqawi’s later actions and subdued presence prior to his death suggested that he was not carrying out Osama’s bidding, and may have proved more trouble than he was worth. His very notoriety rendered him less effective in carrying out Al Qaeda’s objectives in Iraq. Since then, Osama has probably anointed other agents to serve his interests there, but the connections are hazy. The very de-centralized, diverse, and unregulated nature of Al Qaeda is their strength, and makes them so elusive and dangerous. Therefore, it’s ridiculous for Bush and company to paint them as a unified, cohesive, contiguous enemy all over the world.

"They know they're al Qaeda, the Iraqi people know they're al Qaeda, people across the Muslim world know they're al Qaeda," Bush insisted. The very fact that the West is so scared of this Al Qaeda entity (and it’s on the news nonstop) makes small-time terrorists and wanna-bes seek to claim membership or affiliation. When the Bloods and Cripps were waging gang war in California in the 1990s, people all over the place took interest and claimed membership, even if they had nothing to do with the feud. But it was “cool” to act like you were part of an organization that was causing so much buzz and fear among people (even though the chances of being killed by a gangster were next to nil if you didn’t live in the ghetto). Half of the people who might profess to be Al Qaeda (or even had a part in 9/11) are phonies and lesser threats (if a threat at all). Take Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2811855.stm). He was a petty thug with delusions of grandeur, yet the Western media and governments made him out to be a sinister arch-villain. Six years later, we have barely prosecuted anyone over 9/11, so we needed a scapegoat. We threw the book at KSM, and he gladly accepted! He craves to be a big-shot terrorist and Jihadi martyr (the “mastermind” of 9/11!), and we played right into his hands (not to mention that his confessions were also probably coerced with torture). The specter of Al Qaeda makes posers want to be them, and makes us chase mirages. I’m not saying that Al Qaeda isn’t a serious concern and danger; we all know it is. We shouldn’t just dismiss them, but misidentifying them doesn’t help either. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. If we keep chasing the faux terrorists, will we be ready when the graver threats emerge?

Our hysteria over Al Qaeda draws interest to them, and may actually increase support among the true members. We’re turning them into pop stars. But do we really have a firm grasp of what Al Qaeda is? A 2004 BBC documentary questions whether Bush and company are chasing a red herring and totally mischaracterizing the terror threat.

------------

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050124/scheer0111

http://www.reallynews.com/video/pon/powerofnightmares.htm

Talking points from the article:

If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than forty countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this Administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only seventeen have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on Meet the Press in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and US military forces later found no such thing?

Terrorism is deeply threatening, but it appears to be a much more fragmented and complex phenomenon than the octopus-network image of Al Qaeda, with bin Laden as its head, would suggest.

Consider, for example, that neither the 9/11 commission nor any court of law has been able to directly take evidence from the key post-9/11 terror detainees held by the United States. Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy.

------------

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12173643

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12091942

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9923902

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9008784

From NPR:

President Bush and other supporters of the surge in Iraq say that if U.S. troops withdraw, the terrorists "will follow us home." But many military and intelligence analysts say the U.S. presence in Iraq - and elsewhere in the Middle East - is what really upsets the terrorists and mobilizes their base.

"There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States, that that's a credible scenario," said retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a specialist in international security threats at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Paul Pillar, a former deputy CIA counterterrorism chief who now teaches at Georgetown University, says that logic requires the belief that there is a fixed number of terrorists out there to bedevil the United States.

"And we are either engaging them or killing them in Iraq or they're doing something else," Pillar said. "Well, we don't have a fixed number, of course, and the longer that we stay engaged in what has become in the eyes of the Islamist jihadists the biggest and foremost jihad, namely Iraq, the more likelihood we will breed even more terrorists."

"That horse has already left the barn," argues Thomas X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel and professor at the National Defense University. Hammes says Iraq-trained or Iraq-inspired terrorists have already carried out attacks in places such as London, Spain and Bali. The recent terror attack at Glasgow airport is a case in point, he says.

And Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the White House presents the best evidence to the contrary. "One of the indications of success that the administration is presenting is that in Anbar province, the Sunni tribes are beginning to turn against al-Qaida," Takeyh notes. "So the idea that an American withdrawal will lead to an al-Qaida sanctuary in northwest Iraq is belied by the evidence that the administration is itself presenting."

Takeyh also takes issue with White House predictions of a full-scale regional war. He says Iraq's neighbors have every interest in preventing war from spilling over their borders. "Instead of … intensifying their presence and exacerbating the civil war, they may actually [get] involved in a serious mediation effort," says Takeyh.

----------

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1944

From The Independent Institute:

North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons. The United States is far away from the world’s centers of conflict. In addition, the United States does not have many militant foreign populations that could provide sanctuary and support for imported terrorists of the same ilk (unlike Britain).

According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a miniscule one in 80,000—about the same as the same person being killed by a comet. Of course, the chances are even lower if you are an American living in America (instead of overseas) and not residing in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

The “Islamo-fascist” scare has worked. The already massive U.S. defense budget has increased by 50% and the budget of the recently created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has doubled. The DHS budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $46.5 billion, much of which goes to fight terrorism. Spending all that money to combat a threat that is as rare as a catastrophic comet hitting the United States makes little sense.

According to U.S. counterterrorism experts, about 90% of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters. These experts believe that these fighters emphasize local concerns and would have their hands full fighting the more numerous Shi’a when U.S. forces—one of their current major targets—withdraw.