An unfortunate consequence of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/07/28/330767266/taliban-in-pakistan-derails-world-polio-eradication

If you have followed the OBL story and/or saw "Zero Dark Thirty", maybe you are familiar with the fact that the CIA exploited a hepatitis vaccination program in Pakistan to locate OBL through DNA matching. Unfortunately, word about that got to the Pak Taliban, and now they don't trust any medical vaccination programs.

Humanity has been spending billions trying to eradicate polio for decades, and we are mostly successful everywhere BUT Pakistan. Since 2012, vaccination workers have been targeted and killed (about 60 dead), and families in Taliban-controlled areas are intimidated and discouraged from getting vaccinated.

The Taliban say that is is outrageous that the CIA would use a humanitarian program as cover for its operations. Of course it's also outrageous that they are killing medical workers and families trying to protect their kids, but their paranoia/savagery has some justification. Yet another unintended consequence of some smarty-pants at Langley (or Jessica Chastain) thinking this would be great way to find OBL. I understand if that was "the only way", but the most global and well-funded intel org in the world had 10 years to find OBL through other channels (incl. torture), and failed. So now they put thousands of lives at risk just to take out an ailing, marginalized terrorist. 

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.

More on Bin Laden

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/mind-soul/spirituality/story/2011/05/Is-it-OK-to-cheer-Osama-bin-Ladens-death/46759110/1

Here's a take on the religious considerations regarding celebrating OBL's assassination. Even if we are atheists, it just makes more sense to try to cooperate and coexist peacefully, rather than piss off others by taking more than we're due, acting superior, and fighting real or perceived threats all the time. There is more than one way to confront a threat. But nationalism is the worst religion of them all. It's got all the brainwashing, exceptionalism, and bigotry, without any of the redeeming compassion and morals. I guess that's why modern regimes needed to sprinkle in a little "democracy" and "rights" here and there, so the peasants believe they are fighting for something noble. It's quite telling that during WWI, both the Brits and Germans were telling their people that they were fighting to save civilization from evil.

The way the OBL hit turned out is interesting, because both sides will spin it like crazy for their propaganda. Initially there were reports that OBL was armed and used his wife as a human shield before he was shot. So of course he's the dastardly coward to the end. Fairly tale closure, good guys win, and score one for the home team. But new reports say that is false, and that he wasn't armed (not sure how the wife died, if she even died?). So the Jihadi side will say that OBL died like a martyr at the hands of the infidel Zionist killers. He may become so mythologized that he will be a better recruiting figure dead than alive. So what have we accomplished? A common concern during the War on Terror is to avoid creating more new terrorists than we neutralize. Clearly this isn't about one man anymore. America created Osama to be this catch-all bogeyman comprising of all our fears and insecurities. The Islamists see him as a freedom fighter defying tyranny. Now it will be interesting to see what new person or entity assumes that role for each side.

A radio host was interviewing a college-aged girl, and they were discussing how that generation is sometimes labeled "the 9/11 generation", I guess because it was the most significant event of their lifetimes and they grew up with the nation at war. The young lady said that she was glad to witness the death of the "man who stole their childhoods". Talk about melodramatic. Yes 9/11 was understandably traumatic on us all, but unless a kid was directly affected by a death or job loss due to 9/11, I think that generation was still able to grow up with plenty of comfort, security, and opportunity in America (if you're not poor or colored). What about the "stolen childhoods" of all the Iraqi children that our weapons maimed or who became orphans due to our war? Have some perspective. It's not all about how we've suffered, and an American life is not inherently more valuable to humanity. Maybe if we thought more humbly and globally, people wouldn't hate us so much.

Bin Laden's death

Vengeance is not justice, but it is often a shallow substitute.

Not to be a killjoy (but be honest, you were expecting this), but I would have preferred America to have a more tempered response to the Bin Laden news. All the flag-waving, gloating, and "God bless America" celebration, while somewhat justified in a long war with few significant victories for the US, won't really help us secure a better future. Especially the religious terminology from Palin and others only serves to complicate reconciliation (and regardless of what the zealots say, most terrorists or extremists can still be bargained with under the right circumstances - see the Sunni Awakening and "nice" Qaddafi). When it's a religious war, it's winner-take-all, which has been the wet dream of psychopathic warmongers for centuries. Both sides think god is on their side, and will help them smite their enemy, yet claim that they worship a prophet of peace? Huckabee said "Welcome to hell, Bin Laden." I thought it was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Love your enemies"? And that man used to be a Baptist minister.

That's why I wish during his speech last night, Obama would have called on Americans to practice restraint, use this occasion to reflect and remember the victims of war (on all sides), and think about what each of us can do to promote peace and security in our neighborhoods and abroad. I wish he would have refrained from the "G.B.A." cliche. Otherwise it's quite grotesque to see the richest nation with the most powerful (and expensive) military jubilantly celebrating one man's death, especially a man weakened by disease who poses very little direct threat to us, and who was hiding out in broad daylight while we were combing vast swaths of rugged terrain for him for years (and killing many of the wrong people during our hunting efforts). Sadly, it reminds me of the Munchkins celebrating Dorothy's house falling on the Wicked Witch, when the Witch's meaner sister was still out there. As one KQED commentator said this morning, "It's not a football game."

The identities of SEAL Team 6 and the intel personnel responsible for the actual attack may never be known (unless they blow their cover, appear on Oprah, and write tell-all books), so they are happy just to accomplish their mission, and don't need the praise of politicians looking for a sound bite as we head towards election season. I am sure it was the biggest rush of their lives to conduct this historic raid, but of course they were doing it out of love for country. I bet the 9/11 hijackers felt similar pride for their special mission. I'm not saying that our troops are on the same level as terrorists, but it's so funny how everything in the world seems to have its mirror, while politicians and ideologues only see black and white. Well one thing is for sure, this mission will definitely be re-created in the next installment of XBox Call of Duty.

So where do we go from here? There are a lot of unanswered questions. The "original" Al Qaeda, Af-Pak-based and led by Bin Laden, was mostly irrelevant since 2003, and bigger concerns exist from other terror networks like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (supposedly the people behind the underpants and Time Square bombers), radicalism among Muslim youth in Europe, and of course Iranian nuclear research. Then there's all the political upheaval in many Arab nations, and how those events play out could really reshape the security landscape for us. Also, why was O.B.L. permitted to live in a heavily guarded compound in a nice military suburb in our ally Pakistan? It's pretty clear that this wasn't a joint operation with the Pakistanis, because their military-intel establishment is so full of leaks that someone would have surely tipped off Bin Laden. Osama's people built that custom compound with high walls and barbed wire, had couriers coming in and out every day, and even burnt their trash, and no one hunting Bin Laden noticed until this spring?

Also, why the hasty burial-at-sea? While I doubt that even our gov't would dare to falsify Osama's death, the swift handling raises some eyebrows and opens the door for conspiracy theories. Why not return the remains to the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia? The KQED guest said that the US may want to avoid having Osama's corpse on display somewhere for veneration and inspiration, so they took this course of action. Lastly, why didn't we try harder to capture Osama? He was supposedly killed by a "double-tap" to the side of the head. Does that mean it was an up-close execution? Isn't Osama more useful to us alive? Even if he won't give up intel (even under torture), some questioning could probably be useful - and isn't he supposed to stand trial for the embassy bombings and 9/11? Or are we worried about what he might say on the stand? Not to incite conspiracy again, but it is peculiar. I know that no captive is worth losing soldiers over, so if the SEALs didn't feel they could capture O.B.L. safely, better to shoot to kill?

It's pretty clear that justice has NOT been done over 9/11, even with Osama dead. Congress is still dragging its feet over compensation for sickened first responders. The wars we launched in response to 9/11 created a bunch of new injustices and problems. The root causes of terrorism that partly inspired Osama are still mostly intact: Crusader-like US military presence in the Middle East, Western support of corrupt oil regimes and Israeli aggression, vast wealth and human rights inequalities, abuse of Muslim immigrants, and other issues that can be seen as insults to Islam. I know Muslims have done plenty of horrible things to each other and us since 9/11 too, so clearly the case is not closed. Finally, let's remember that all the terrible damage done to the US and our interests on 9/11 pales in comparison to the amazing losses we incurred during the recent financial crisis. That "attack" was perpetrated by Western greedy bankers, ignorant investors/borrowers, corrupt politicians, and lax regulators. That wasn't Al Qaeda at all, it was us. So who is the bigger enemy that we should fear and fight?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/ts_nm/us_binladen_compound
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_the_raid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden;_ylt=AtJwovoSU36wQK1iPsoahRxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNsMXZucW9jBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX2V4Y2x1c2l2ZS8yMDExMDUwMi90aGUtc2VjcmV0LXRlYW0tdGhhdC1raWxsZWQtYmluLWxhZGVuBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXNlY3JldHRlYQ--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden;_ylt=Ai99lNU7AeFlZp8jNWRL9hJH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJmNmMybWFyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTAyL3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcHNvdXJjZXNkbmE-
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201105020900

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.

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.