SPEAKING
FREELY Al-Qaeda's thumbs up for
Bush By Craig B Hulet
Speaking
Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
A new
book by an author going by the name Anonymous (a senior
US intelligence official) , contains an outright and
strong condemnation of America's counter-terrorism
policy. The author argues that the West is losing the
war against al-Qaeda and that an "avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into
Osama bin Laden's hands.
The book, due out in
the first week of July, titled Imperial Hubris: Why
the West is Losing the War on Terror, dismisses two
of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration:
that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "on the run" and that
the Iraq invasion has made America safer.
In
Record of Terror, I noted US conventional
military force is the vehicle to prosecute these wars,
when it was and is US military intervention all over the
world that has been a primary cause for individuals to
form groups and retaliate against that very
intervention. US military intervention has been
identified as the major cause for terrorist acts against
Americans and American facilities, corporate, military
and governmental by none other than the US Pentagon's
Defense Science Board DSB):
As part of its global power position, the
United States is called upon frequently to respond to
international causes and deploy forces around the
world. America's position in the world invited attack
simply because of its presence. Historical data show a
strong correlation between US involvement in
international situations and increase in terrorist
attacks against the United States. (Source:
October, 1997 Summer Study Task Force on Department of
Defense Responses to Transnational Threats, DSB)
In an interview with the Guardian,
Anonymous described al-Qaeda as a much more proficient
and focused organization than it was in 2001, and
predicted that it would "inevitably acquire weapons of
mass destruction and try to use them".
He said
that bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his
organization from the mountainous tribal lands along the
border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistani
army claimed a big success in the "war against terror"
last week with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek
Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaeda's protectors in the
Waziristan tribal belt. (Source: "Bush told he is
playing into Bin Laden's hands and al-Qaeda may 'reward'
American president with strike aimed at keeping him in
office, senior intelligence man says." - Julian Borger
in Washington, Saturday June 19.)
Another widely
respected expert on international relations noted
something similar when he wrote:
If steps to deal with the problem in terms
of capabilities are limited, can anything be done to
address intentions - the incentives for any foreign
power or group to lash out at the United States? There
are few answers to this question that do not
compromise the fundamental strategic activism and
international thrust of US foreign policy over the
past half century. That is because the best way to
keep people from believing that the United States is
responsible for their problems is to avoid involvement
in their conflicts. (Source: Richard K Betts:
Foreign Affairs Vol 77, No 1, page 40)
On
our relentless war in Afghanistan, Anonymous, who has
been centrally involved in the hunt for bin Laden, said:
"Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes
forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf cannot
advance much further into the tribal areas without
endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He
walks a very fine line."
The Guardian reported
this important difference in the new book's release,
stating:
Imperial Hubris is the latest in a
relentless stream of books attacking the
administration in election year. Most of the earlier
ones, however, were written by embittered former
officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work
of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience
in counter-terrorism who is still part of the
intelligence establishment. The fact that he has been
allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without
naming which agency he works for, may reflect the
increasing frustration of senior intelligence
officials at the course the administration has
taken.
(Ibid, Julian Borger)
Another
author who has read the new book's manuscript, one Peter
Bergen, the author of two books on bin Laden and
al-Qaeda, said: "His views represent an amped-up version
of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence
counter-terrorist professionals."
Anonymous does
not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House
and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion
as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against
a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did
offer economic advantage". Our argument was oil and the
economic global regime's thirst for this commodity all
along. Anonymous is to the point on Bush's alleged
reasons for going to war:
Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an
abject, even willful failure to recognize the
ideological power, lethality and growth potential of
the threat personified by bin Laden, as well as the
impetus that threat has been given by the US-led
invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq.
In
his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture
the al-Qaeda leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains
in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of
his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on
surrogates who proved to be unreliable. "For my money,
the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said. (Ibid,
Borger)
Bush has repeated his assertion that bin
Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave
deep enough to hide from American justice". But
Anonymous said:
I think we overestimate significantly the
stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes
our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock
and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is
that he's fairly comfortable where he is ... I don't
think we've laid a glove on him ... What I think we're
seeing in al-Qaeda is a change of generation ... the
people who are leading al-Qaeda now seem a lot more
professional group ... They are more bureaucratic,
more management competent, certainly more literate.
Certainly, this generation is more computer literate,
more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also
think they're much less prone to being the Errol
Flynns of al-Qaeda. They're just much more careful
across the board in the way they operate.
(Ibid)
Recall just how vulnerable
the West is to the kinds of attacks like September 11.
In the aftermath of that event, Time magazine quoted a
senior Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official
and counterterrorism expert who stated the
following:
The worldwide dragnet has snared 600
alleged al-Qaeda operatives. And yet the bottom line
is sobering: after six months of gumshoe work by just
about every law-enforcement official in the US, the
number of al-Qaeda sleeper cells that have been busted
inside the country is precisely zero. Does that mean
bin Laden's men have gone further underground? "We
don't know," says an FBI official. "If you go back and
look at the hijackers, they had zero contact with any
known al-Qaeda people we were looking at. They didn't
break laws. They didn't do anything to come to
anybody's attention. Are there other people in the US
like that? We don't know.
(Source: Can We
Stop the Next Attack? Time, page 35, March 11, 2002)
As for weapons of mass destruction, The Guardian
reported that Anonymous thinks that if al-Qaeda does not
have them already, it will inevitably acquire them. The
most likely source of a nuclear device would be the
former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical
and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaeda's
own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.
The most profound assertion the author made
(Anonymous), who published an analysis of al-Qaeda last
year called "Through Our Enemies' Eyes", thinks it quite
possible that another devastating strike against the US
could come during the election campaign, not with the
intention of changing the administration, as was the
case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one
in place. Bush is good for the Islamists the world over
who want to make war on America and the West. Anonymous
again:
I'm very sure they can't have a better
administration for them than the one they have now.
One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount
an attack that would rally the country around the
president. In every age ... the ultimate sources of
war are the beliefs of those in power: "their idea
about what is of most fundamental importance and may
therefore ultimately be worth a war." - Evan Luard,
International War
Along with Anonymous'
enormously important work, and angered by Bush
administration policies, 26 retired US diplomats and
military officers contend the administration policies
endanger national security. They are urging Americans to
vote Bush out of office in November, although the group,
which calls itself "Diplomats and Military Commanders
for Change", does not explicitly endorse Democrat John
Kerry for president in its campaign.
Among the
group are 20 ambassadors appointed by both Democratic
and Republican presidents, other former State Department
officials and military leaders whose careers span three
decades. Prominent members include retired Marine
General Joseph P Hoar, commander of US forces in the
Middle East during the administration of Bush's father;
retired Admiral William J Crowe Jr, ambassador to
Britain under president Bill Clinton and chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff under president Ronald Reagan; and
Jack F Matlock Jr, a member of the National Security
Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union
from 1987 to 1991. "We agreed that we had just lost
confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to
advocate for American interests or to provide the kind
of leadership that we think is essential," said William
C Harrop, the first president Bush's ambassador to
Israel, and earlier to four African countries, in
reported comments. "The group does not endorse Kerry,
although it more or less goes without saying in the
statement," Harrop said.
Harrop said he listed
himself as an independent for years for career purposes
but usually has voted Republican. The former ambassador
said diplomats and military officials normally avoid
making political statements, especially in an election
year. "Some of us are not that comfortable with it, but
we just feel very strongly that the country needs new
leadership," Harrop said. He said the group was
disillusioned by Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and
a list of other subjects, including the Middle East,
environmental conservation, AIDS policy, ethnic and
religious conflict and weapons proliferation.
One would think Bush would listen to such
experts, whose warnings seem to go not just unheeded,
but the administration's elite neo-conservatives
positively vilify their critics. The White House has yet
to comment publicly on the book Imperial Hubris,
which is due to be published on July 4, "but
intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a
professionally embittered maverick". (Ibid, Borger) The
tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and
urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaeda
led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the
late 1990s. But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of
operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's
counter-terrorism center, said he had been vindicated by
events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a
serious student of the subject."
Anonymous
believes Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction
bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with
Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.
It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead
Americans before we say to ourselves: "What is going
on?"
(Source: Borger)
Bush's
reaction? Bush's next move? One must question not
only what the administration is doing presently but what
it will do should it return to office after the November
elections; upcoming wars against other nation-states
(which clearly have been targeted) are on the Pentagon's
desk. Further evidence that the latter is officially on
the agenda is below: This was dated Monday, February 17,
2003:
US Under Secretary of State John Bolton
said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that
he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it
will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria,
Iran and North Korea afterwards. Bolton, who is under
secretary for arms control and international security,
is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread
of weapons of mass destruction. In a meeting with
Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said
that Israel is concerned about the security threat
posed by Iran. It's important to deal with Iran even
while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon
said.
(Source: "US official to Israel:
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war", Monday,
February 17, 2003, by Haaretz correspondents, Haaretz
Service and Agencies.)
Add to that that French
intelligence services have seen more on the horizon than
Americans would:
It has been reliably reported that the
American president and his closest military advisors,
in conjunction with the highest military commands,
have determined that military operations should be
prepared for and executed against two main targets.
The first and primary ones are in the Middle East and
comprise Iraq and most especially Iran. The secondary
object is North Korea. The use of conventional US
ground troops is counter-indicated. US ground troops
are being withdrawn from South Korea (2nd Infantry
Division etc) ostensibly for replacement duties in
Iraq, but in fact to remove these units from any
collateral damage from projected nuclear attacks on
North Korea. There are insufficient personnel
available for either operation at the present time and
increasing their size is not politically viable.
Therefore, a determination is made for both a show of
force and the ability to launch a powerful attack
against these targets if and when the commander in
chief deems it necessary. In furtherance of this
policy, the United States naval forces will be
utilized as the focus of the attack forces. These
units will not be subject to counter attacks because
they can stand off at a distance and attack their
targets with complete impunity. Naval personnel will
not be subject to guerrilla warfare in any sense and
will supply a very powerful attack force capable of
delivering deadly blows against designated targets.
(Source: TBRNEWS –special edition of June
17.)
Immediately below is a quote from an e-mail
I received from a federal intelligence agent now at the
Department of Justice after a thorough review of this
office's original working paper "Record of Terror"
2002:
Well don't you paint a happy picture!
Perhaps we should pull out of Korea and some of these
other conflict zones and let the parties resolve their
own issues? I think you underestimate the logic of
your position. If one actually reads what you are
saying (assuming the reader is willing to set aside
personal agendas) I really think you make a lot of
sense. But then again logic has very little to do with
anything anymore, be it justice or foreign policy!
(Source: A federal agent with
Justice/Homeland Security)
The following data is
supplied for the reader to comprehend the level of
military operations necessary to fight a global war on
terrorism, a war that cannot be won.
Because terrorism is one of the few
dimensions on which the US does not have an advantage,
it is a promising tool for those who feel strongly
about interests they believe have suffered because of
other dimensions of US power.
(Source: Paul
Pillar, Terrorism, Page 57)
Empirical
evidence that there is a causal relationship between
terrorism and what we do as nation-state in these
foreign lands was supplied by defense specialist Ivan
Eland of the Cato Institute. Listing incidents that
could be proven to have a direct correlation to US
military intervention in regions of the world where we
did not belong, in both the view of terrorists and none
too few American experts, Eland begins as early as 1915
and ends through September 1998. The title of his
briefing, "Does US Intervention Overseas Breed
Terrorism? The Historical Record", Eland observed:
Although the Defense Science Board noted a
historical correlation between US involvement in
international situations and an increase in terrorist
attacks against the United States, the board
apparently believed the conclusion to be so obvious
that it did not publish detailed data to support it.
Some analysts apparently remain unconvinced of the
relationship.
Another component of US
vulnerability is that Americans tend to view
transnational threats singularly. That is, terrorist
incidents ... tend to look like individual events that
do not evidence a campaign against US policies or
interests. Deeper investigation shows that a number of
transnational adversaries have planned campaigns of
unconventional warfare.
- Defense Policy
Board, 1997, Vol 1, Pg 15
Paul R Pillar, whose
book Terrorism and US Foreign Policy was a staple
for reading in counterterror circles and private
security specialists like myself, pre-September 11. He
notes this regarding the afore mentioned
arguments:
More than anything else, it is the United
States' predominant place atop the world order (with
everything that implies militarily, economically, and
culturally) and the perceived US opposition to change
in any part of that order that underlie terrorists'
resentment of the United States and their intent to
attack it.
(Pillar, Terrorism, Page
60)
The Defense Science Board's 1997 Summer
Study Task Force on "Department of Defense Responses to
Transnational Threats" notes a relationship between an
activist American foreign policy and terrorism against
the United States:
As part of its global power position, the
United States is called upon frequently to respond to
international causes and deploy forces around the
world. America's position in the world invites attack
simply because of its presence. Historical data show a
strong correlation between US involvement in
international situations and an increase in terrorist
attacks against the United States.
Given the
evidence immediately below, one cannot but admit that
Bush and his gruesome crew are going to continue the
path they have selected as the chosen elite to
administer peace through strength under a new
definition.
US naval deployment as of June
15, 2004 USS Enterprise - Atlantic (unknown
location - possibly headed for the Middle East) USS
George Washington - en route to the Gulf of Arabia
USS John F Kennedy - Atlantic (unknown location -
possibly headed for the Middle East) USS Roosevelt -
Atlantic, heading for the Middle East USS Harry S
Truman - Atlantic USS Kitty Hawk - normally stationed
in Japan, now moving towards China (Korea
Operation) USS Stennis - Pacific - headed for Taiwan
(Korea Operation) USS Carl Vinson – Pacific - headed
for Taiwan (Korea Operation) USS Abraham Lincoln -
Pacific (backup-Korea Operation) USS Ronald Reagan -
port visit in Rio De Janiero, Brazil USS Nimitz -
Still in drydock, refueling its reactor USS
Eisenhower - Still in drydock, refueling its reactor
Note: Most ships left port with little
notice and were markedly understaffed.
Navy
personnel Active duty: 376,185 Officers:
55,793 Enlisted: 317,213 Midshipmen: 3,179 ready
reserve: 147,622 (As of April 30) Selected reserves:
83,719 Individual ready reserve: 63,903 Reserves
currently mobilized: 2,535 (as of June 9) Personnel
on deployment: 49,604 Navy department civilian
employees: 181,701 (as of April 30)
Ships and
submarines Ships: 295 Ships underway (away
from homeport): 164 (56% of total) On deployment: 108
ships (37% of total) Submarines underway (away from
homeport): 30 submarines (57% of submarine
force) Submarines on deployment: 8 submarines (15% of
submarine force)
Ships underway (other than
carriers) Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
Two USS Wasp (LHD 1)(22 MEU) - Arabian
Gulf USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) - Arabian Gulf USS
Yorktown (CG 48) - Gulf of Oman USS Shreveport (LPD
12) - Indian Ocean USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) -
Arabian Gulf USS McFaul (DDG 74) - Arabian
Gulf
Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
Three (11th Marine Expeditionary Unit) USS
Belleau Wood (LHA 3) - Pacific USS Denver (LPD 9) -
Pacific USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific
Amphibious Ships USS Tarawa (LHA 1) -
Pacific USS Nassau (LHA 4) - Atlantic USS
Peleliu (LHA 5) - Pacific USS Essex (LHD 2) -
Pacific USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) - Atlantic USS
Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)
- Pacific USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Atlantic USS
Austin (LPD 4) - Atlantic USS Duluth (LPD 6) -
Pacific USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific USS Juneau
(LPD 10) - Pacific USS Ponce (LPD 15) -
Atlantic USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) - port visit,
Singapore USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Atlantic USS
Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific USS Ashland (LSD 48) -
Atlantic USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Sunda
Sea USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic USS Oak
Hill (LSD 51) - port visit, Mayport, Fla Aircraft
(operational): 4,000+
Craig B Hulet
was Special Assistant for Special Projects to
Congressman Jack Metcalf (Retired); he is periodically a
consultant to federal law enforcement ATF&E of
Justice/Homeland Security; he has written four books on
international relations and philosophy, his latest is
The Hydra of Carnage: Bush's Imperial War-making and
the Rule of Law - An Analysis of the Objectives and
Delusions of Empire. Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
(Copyright 2004 Craig B
Hulet and The Artful Nuance)
