You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Book by CIA official slams US war on terrorism, Iraq
Book by CIA official slams US war on terrorism, Iraq
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A book by an anonymous CIA official titled "Imperial Hubris," describes Iraq and Afghanistan as two "failed half-wars" that have played into the enemy's hands and complicated the war on terrorism, reports said.
The 309-page book was written by a still serving Central Intelligence Agency officer who from 1996 to 1999 headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden and who, in the book, is identified only as Anonymous, said the New York Times which obtained a copy of the book.
In a highly unusual move allowing the publication of a book on a politically explosive topic, the CIA vetted the book to ensure it included no classified information, and a CIA official asked the daily not to reveal the identity of its author -- a former CIA official identified him -- because he could become a target of bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, the daily said.
In criticism directed both at US President George W. Bush and his predecessor Bill Clinton, the author of the book says US leaders "refuse to accept the obvious".
"We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism -- and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces," he said.
He said the threat from radical Islam is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world. [Huh??? What does that mean?]
The book denounces the US occupation of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which bin Laden and his followers draw.
"There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," the author writes.
In warning that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, Anonymous writes: "In the period since 11 September, the United States has dealt lethal blows to Al Qaeda's leadership and -- if official claims are true -- have captured 3,000 Al Qaeda foot soldiers.
"At the same time, we have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups."
Anonymous said he has "a pressing certainty that Al Qaeda will attack the continental United States again, that its next strike will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001, and could include use of weapons of mass destruction."
Notice that it criticizes both Republican and Democratic administrations. It reminds me of that quote by Richard Lugar (R) who said, and I'm paraphrasing badly here, that a war against terrorism requires more than just a military campaign; it requires a combined campaign involving diplomatic, economic, and other fronts of attack. As to the article, I bet 12secZ will have a comment of two about that.
Every department would like to have their ideas heard, especially when it comes to military "should've would've could've"s... Many people think, yes, Clinton was at fault for not going after Bin Laden. Others think that Bush Sr. was at fault for not taking out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance in '91.
Within the CIA I am positive there are many perspectives for what we should have done and what we have done wrong. What would Anonymous' response have been to the 9/11 attacks? And how are we at half-war? And how have they failed? What sorts of policies and procedures can we adopt that would earn us friends and not enemies - that would not undermine US interests abroad?
Skooly, most of the time you pull some very insightful articles. This is not one of them.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
He said the threat from radical Islam is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world<<Is this news to anyone,this should already be painfully obvious
I agree entirely with this analysis. When was the last time people have talked about why Bin Laden is doing what he was and is doing now? Anyone remember what is motivating Bin Laden? We're all so gung ho about the war on terror, we're missing why we're at war.
This guy is absolutely correct, it is a radical islamic uprising and in their view, not a terrorism issue but a religious issue. It originated with "our" presence and policies in the middle east.
Why is it that there are so many people on this forum oblivious to expert opinion? This guy knows what he's talking about and is clearly more knowledgable about the subject than any of us yahoos.
Sheesh. It's like people are so filled with fear, anger and patriotism that they are blind to what is being said and what is going on.
>> This guy is absolutely correct, it is a radical islamic uprising and in their view, not a terrorism issue but a religious issue. It originated with "our" presence and policies in the middle east.
You are unbelievable. This war DID NOT originate with our presence and policies in the middle east. If they don't like our presence and policies, then that is their right to disagree. They are more than welcome to exert political and economic pressure to change the situation. HOWEVER, it is not a justification to fly a F***KING plane into two skyscrapers and MURDER thousands of innocent men, women, and children!!!
>> Why is it that there are so many people on this forum oblivious to expert opinion? This guy knows what he's talking about and is clearly more knowledgable about the subject than any of us yahoos.
Just because the guy wrote a book does not make him the only expert in the CIA. I'm sure the CIA is full of other experts who totally disagree with his ideas.
cart (pauses to catch his breath and regain his composure.)
Originally posted by cart213 You are unbelievable. This war DID NOT originate with our presence and policies in the middle east. If they don't like our presence and policies, then that is their right to disagree. They are more than welcome to exert political and economic pressure to change the situation. HOWEVER, it is not a justification to fly a F***KING plane into two skyscrapers and MURDER thousands of innocent men, women, and children!!!
Cart213, hfm wasn't offering a justification for the 9/11 attacks, if that's how you interpreted him. He was pointing out that there is an ideological underpinning for these attacks -- our soldiers can kills hundreds and thousands of suspected terrorists, but until we address the ideology that is causing these attacks, we will never see an end to the fighting.
The article is also important because it challenges the widely-held opinion that our military campaign is decreasing the number of terrorists. That only works in the short term. As the Pentagon expert noted, it's actually increasing the number of terrorists by inflaming the entire Muslim world and contributing to a never-ending cycle of violence. For every terrorist we kill, 10 will rise up to avenge their fallen brother. Does that mean we can't fight them? No. It means we had better learn to pick and choose our battles and the ways we fight them very carefully.
Re: Book by CIA official slams US war on terrorism, Iraq
Quote:
Originally posted by skooly
He said the threat from radical Islam is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world. [Huh??? What does that mean?]
I think he means that Al Qaeda and people like them were not really upset with US policies but with the policies of Arab states who cooperate with the US. The sellouts, if you will. The islamists main short term goal is not necessarily to destroy the United States but to rekindle the 'jyhad' and get arab states involved in their 'global religious war' against all other faiths.
In that sense, American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was exactly what they wanted...so I see where this guy is going. But I think he is failing to recognize the fact that 'jyhad' simply isn't going to happen, and that most Arabs/Muslims, even some of the radical ones, understand that jyhad will spell disaster for the Arab world, as they will be summarily obliterated. This is doubly true if Turkey, a NATO member seeking European Union membership, joins the other side. Turkey alone could probably win a war against the rest of the Arab world.
So...I see where this guy is going...and I agree with him to a point, but I never seem to have any respect for anyone who utters the phrase "we're giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted." What they want isn't going to happen. And if it ever does happen, they're going to regret it very very much.
At least one more ex-CIA guy is going to make a lot of money.
Pete (wishes he had some standing to write a terror-related book and cash in too)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by cart213 >> This guy is absolutely correct, it is a radical islamic uprising and in their view, not a terrorism issue but a religious issue. It originated with "our" presence and policies in the middle east.
You are unbelievable. This war DID NOT originate with our presence and policies in the middle east. If they don't like our presence and policies, then that is their right to disagree. They are more than welcome to exert political and economic pressure to change the situation. HOWEVER, it is not a justification to fly a F***KING plane into two skyscrapers and MURDER thousands of innocent men, women, and children!!!
>> Why is it that there are so many people on this forum oblivious to expert opinion? This guy knows what he's talking about and is clearly more knowledgable about the subject than any of us yahoos.
Just because the guy wrote a book does not make him the only expert in the CIA. I'm sure the CIA is full of other experts who totally disagree with his ideas.
cart (pauses to catch his breath and regain his composure.)
Quote:
Originally posted by skooly Cart213, hfm wasn't offering a justification for the 9/11 attacks, if that's how you interpreted him. He was pointing out that there is an ideological underpinning for these attacks -- our soldiers can kills hundreds and thousands of suspected terrorists, but until we address the ideology that is causing these attacks, we will never see an end to the fighting.
Skooly is correct, my comment was not justification for 9/11. Rather, I support this authors explanation regarding why it happened. In fact, I was making points similar to anonymous even before he became public.
"I am now firmly of the opinion that Iraq was a non-issue, that there were no WMD, that Saddam was not a threat to national security, that GW was finishing GW Sr.'s legacy, that we had no business in Iraq, that we used unethical and immoral means in efforts to gain information at the prison, that our troops were needlessly put into harms way and that Bush should have been focused on finding Bin Laden and working on domestic matters, specifically, our economy." http://www.my350z.com/forum/showthre...0&pagenumber=1
This is consistent with anonymous's views regarding Iraq as a non-threat and the fact that we are not waging the war against terrorism correctly.
Think about it. Osama Bin Ladan didn't just out of thin air decide to cause 9/11. Something motivated him to do it. Something motivated his actions before 9/11. Most people on this forum, in the administration and in the general public, do not understand why 9/11 happened. All they know is 9/11 was a bad thing and that we need to go and get who ever caused it without stopping to think why it happened.
I'm not saying 9/11 is justified. I'm saying, I understand why it happened. But, like I posted above, you, like some people, are so blind by fear, hate and patriotism that you're not reading what I'm saying carefully and interpret my comments in a totally incorrect and hostile way.
If we changed our positions on Israel, if we got out of the middle east, if we changed some policies regarding the middle east, we might never see another 9/11 or something worse than 9/11. Now, before some other yahoo says "hfm, you're a coward running from the fight" recognize I didn't say that we should do this. Rather, I am bringing about a discussion of alternatives to invading countries pre-emptively when they are not a threat to this country and about methods of preventing future attacks.
Lastly, as to your comment about this 20 year CIA operative that for three years was dealing with al Qaeda and Bin Laden, you're right, he knows nothing. He's friggen Sgt. Schultz. You Mr. Armchair Political Scientist are far better an authority on middle east foreign policy and Osama Bin Laden.
Man, someone open up the shades because it's awful dark in here.
>> I'm not saying 9/11 is justified. I'm saying, I understand why it happened. But, like I posted above, you, like some people, are so blind by fear, hate and patriotism that you're not reading what I'm saying carefully and interpret my comments in a totally incorrect and hostile way.
>> This guy is absolutely correct, it is a radical islamic uprising and in their view, not a terrorism issue but a religious issue. It originated with "our" presence and policies in the middle east.
Forgive me if I'm incorrect , but it sounds like you are saying that the "radical islamic uprising" "originated with our presence and policies in the middle east." I never said that I thought you were justifiying 9/11. I said that Al Qaeda was not justified in crashing those planes. I also said that you are blaming America for 9/11, and it is clearly not our fault. It is the fault of a madman named bin Laden.
>> Lastly, as to your comment about this 20 year CIA operative that for three years was dealing with al Qaeda and Bin Laden, you're right, he knows nothing. He's friggen Sgt. Schultz. You Mr. Armchair Political Scientist are far better an authority on middle east foreign policy and Osama Bin Laden.
Where did I say I was a better authority? I said that I bet some other CIA operatives disagree with assessment. Also, I'm no more the Armchair Political Scientist than you or anyone else on this forum. We're all just throwing in our $0.02 worth.
Originally posted by hfm Think about it. Osama Bin Ladan didn't just out of thin air decide to cause 9/11. Something motivated him to do it. Something motivated his actions before 9/11. Most people on this forum, in the administration and in the general public, do not understand why 9/11 happened. All they know is 9/11 was a bad thing and that we need to go and get who ever caused it without stopping to think why it happened.
Every action has a motive. But some motives are completely irrational. What Bin Laden and company ultimately want, a united world living under sharia law, is pure fantasy. Even their short term goal, a united Arab/Islamic region standing up to the Isreali/American influence is never going to happen. Turkey is trying to join the EU, and is part of NATO. Egypt is currently more closely aligned with the west than the middle east. Most muslims understand that embracing the Wahabbi teachings will bring ruin to their entire region. Bin Laden's quest is hopeless...he's killing innocents for something that can never be accomplished.
Everyone has a motive. A few months ago a woman crushed her children under heavy stones because 'God told her to do it.' Sure...there was a motive. But some motives are asinine. The destruction of the World Trade Center was similarly asinine, because there is no possibility that it will ever serve to achieve the stated goals and wishes of the perpetrators.
Quote:
I'm not saying 9/11 is justified. I'm saying, I understand why it happened. But, like I posted above, you, like some people, are so blind by fear, hate and patriotism that you're not reading what I'm saying carefully and interpret my comments in a totally incorrect and hostile way.
If we changed our positions on Israel, if we got out of the middle east, if we changed some policies regarding the middle east, we might never see another 9/11 or something worse than 9/11. Now, before some other yahoo says "hfm, you're a coward running from the fight" recognize I didn't say that we should do this. Rather, I am bringing about a discussion of alternatives to invading countries pre-emptively when they are not a threat to this country and about methods of preventing future attacks.
I don't think that abandoning Israel would spare us the islamist extremists wrath any more, but if you take islamists AT THEIR WORD, their ultimate end goal is the subjugation of the entire world under the house of Islam. So if we were to abondon Israel, we'd basically just be buying ourselves time against these guys. Sooner or later they'd come knocking.
I know that most people dismiss the 'house of islam/house of war' strategy as a bunch of nonsense because it is almost impossible that it will ever be brought to fruition, but that is the objective of all of these terrorist groups...they hope to bring about the holy war that ends christianity, judaism, and even rival muslim sects. It may never happen, but these people think it will, and they're going to keep killing people as long as they believe in that crap.
I say it is YOU who isn't understanding their motivation, hfm. Sure, their short term outrage is the fact that Westerners have a foothold in Arab states and that Arab governments are increasingly pro-west. But their long term goal has never changed:
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a pan-islamic government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
These are not rational people. You can't 'understand' their motives in a rational sense. Their motives are cuckoo. They kill in the name of impossible pipe dreams that will never, EVER, happen.
If I was to go around bombing American people because I wanted the US government overthrown and a libertarian state set up, would anybody be 'struggling to understand my motive?' Would anybody care? How much thought did we spare to the motives and desires and circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombers? And how much do we care what they thought? We just locked the crackpots up.
Al Qaeda and company deserve NO more 'understanding' than Nichols and McVeigh did. They simply need to be hunted down and killed, or tried and killed if you want to be civil about it. They are nothing more than lunatics. Dangerous, but not rational. Their motives are garbage.
Because even if you take them AT THEIR OWN WORD, their objectives are impossible to achieve, and thus they are killing people for no good reason.
Pete (will not 'respect' bin laden)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by plezercruz; 06-24-2004 at 11:24 AM.
Originally posted by cart213 >> I'm not saying 9/11 is justified. I'm saying, I understand why it happened. But, like I posted above, you, like some people, are so blind by fear, hate and patriotism that you're not reading what I'm saying carefully and interpret my comments in a totally incorrect and hostile way.
>> This guy is absolutely correct, it is a radical islamic uprising and in their view, not a terrorism issue but a religious issue. It originated with "our" presence and policies in the middle east.
Forgive me if I'm incorrect , but it sounds like you are saying that the "radical islamic uprising" "originated with our presence and policies in the middle east." I never said that I thought you were justifiying 9/11. I said that Al Qaeda was not justified in crashing those planes. I also said that you are blaming America for 9/11, and it is clearly not our fault. It is the fault of a madman named bin Laden.
I am saying that our presence and policies in the middle east was a factor leading to the radical islamic uprising. I am not saying we did anything wrong but that we may not have understood how our presence and policies could result in the radical movement or culminate in 9/11. No one disagrees that 9/11 was cause by Bin Laden and that he needs to be found and killed. We're all on the same page there.
What this book is doing is raising questions of "why?" And, by understanding why, we just might be able to avoid future problems.
>> Lastly, as to your comment about this 20 year CIA operative that for three years was dealing with al Qaeda and Bin Laden, you're right, he knows nothing. He's friggen Sgt. Schultz. You Mr. Armchair Political Scientist are far better an authority on middle east foreign policy and Osama Bin Laden.
Where did I say I was a better authority? I said that I bet some other CIA operatives disagree with assessment. Also, I'm no more the Armchair Political Scientist than you or anyone else on this forum. We're all just throwing in our $0.02 worth.
You never did say he was a better authority, rather, you attacked his credibility and brought into question whether is a qualified expert with the proper skills, knowledge, education or experience able to provide a reasonably probable expert opinion on the subject. From what I've heard, a lot of his ideas are mainstream within senior CIA circles. And, some of his ideas are not. What's funny is that the CIA let this book get published pre-election. Someone over there, really doesn't like this administration or perhaps, has a grudge over Tenent.
I went off on you there because I didn't like being called "unbelievable" nor being viewed as someone supporting what happened on 9/11. Besides, any comment relating to Sgt. Schultz is going to be funny. Take it easy man.
That last post of mine was a rant...I said everything about 3 times...poorly structured, poorly edited. Apologies to all.
Pete (usually writes better than that)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Its that simple. Anyone can write a critique on the last 50 years of US foreign policies directed @ the middle east. If you want to criticize the policies, show me an alternative. That is one thing I appreciate about Bush, he chose a course of action. Let me say that word again, ACTION. It may not be the right one but I can't imagine in the next 5-10 years Iraq will not be better off than it had been under Hussein (I just read an article a couple days ago saying they've just established sewage treatments these last few weeks. . .)
hfm,
I am pretty sure I get what you're saying. I also think America needs to truly re-evaluate our association with Israel. Not to mention I think the only way to get Israel to really sit down to the table and follow through with a peace process is if we begin to pull our unilateral support for them.
However, I fear pulling our interests out of the Middle East. That includes not only our weaponry but also our economic strength. Like Robin Williams said we could bomb Afghanistan in to the stone age and that would be an upgrade.
I believe the best examples we can take from history would be say Japan and Germany, former enemies that we helped rebuild in to economic superpowers.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Originally posted by plezercruz
[b]Every action has a motive. But some motives are completely irrational. What Bin Laden and company ultimately want, a united world living under sharia law, is pure fantasy. Even their short term goal, a united Arab/Islamic region standing up to the Isreali/American influence is never going to happen. Turkey is trying to join the EU, and is part of NATO. Egypt is currently more closely aligned with the west than the middle east. Most muslims understand that embracing the Wahabbi teachings will bring ruin to their entire region. Bin Laden's quest is hopeless...he's killing innocents for something that can never be accomplished.
Everyone has a motive. A few months ago a woman crushed her children under heavy stones because 'God told her to do it.' Sure...there was a motive. But some motives are asinine. The destruction of the World Trade Center was similarly asinine, because there is no possibility that it will ever serve to achieve the stated goals and wishes of the perpetrators.
I don't think that abandoning Israel would spare us the islamist extremists wrath any more, but if you take islamists AT THEIR WORD, their ultimate end goal is the subjugation of the entire world under the house of Islam. So if we were to abondon Israel, we'd basically just be buying ourselves time against these guys. Sooner or later they'd come knocking.
Oh jeeze Pete. Catholics say, if you're not a Catholic, you're going to hell. BFD. If you're saying, which I know you're not, that Muslims in general are looking for subjecation of the entire world, good grief, do we wage war on all persons of Muslim religion? Of course not.
I know that most people dismiss the 'house of islam/house of war' strategy as a bunch of nonsense because it is almost impossible that it will ever be brought to fruition, but that is the objective of all of these terrorist groups...they hope to bring about the holy war that ends christianity, judaism, and even rival muslim sects. It may never happen, but these people think it will, and they're going to keep killing people as long as they believe in that crap.
I say it is YOU who isn't understanding their motivation, hfm. Sure, their short term outrage is the fact that Westerners have a foothold in Arab states and that Arab governments are increasingly pro-west. But their long term goal has never changed:
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a pan-islamic government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
These are not rational people. You can't 'understand' their motives in a rational sense. Their motives are cuckoo. They kill in the name of impossible pipe dreams that will never, EVER, happen.
Pete, I'm not a political scientist anymore so than Cart123 is or anymoreso than you are an authoritarian. Nevertheless, these cuckoo people have managed to attack this nation in a way not seen in over 50 years. Bin Laden has yet to be found. And, more terrorists are popping up in Iraq and elsewhere. And, it seems like we're helpless to stop them.
These people aren't just cuckoo. Like annoymous has been stating, WE UNDERESTIMATED THEM. They may be religious fanatics, crazy, murderous psycopathic killers, but, they're smart, they have the means, they're organized and they're effective.
If I was to go around bombing American people because I wanted the US government overthrown and a libertarian state set up, would anybody be 'struggling to understand my motive?' Would anybody care? How much thought did we spare to the motives and desires and circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombers? And how much do we care what they thought? We just locked the crackpots up.
Al Qaeda and company deserve NO more 'understanding' than Nichols and McVeigh did. They simply need to be hunted down and killed, or tried and killed if you want to be civil about it. They are nothing more than lunatics. Dangerous, but not intelligent.
Because even if you take them AT THEIR OWN WORD, their objectives are impossible to achieve, and thus they are killing people for no good reason.
Pete (will not 'respect' bin laden)
Nichols and McVeigh, Okalhoma City, Waco and the rest of the neo-nazi attacks based upon the Turner Diaries is a different kind of racial hatred. It's local and not a global political problem. We can handle the local riff raft. We have been having a problem handling something of much broader scale. And, if you will not respect Bin Laden, at least have the sense to not underestimate your enemy.
Originally posted by dczoner Don't be a ***** if you don't have a fix.
Its that simple. Anyone can write a critique on the last 50 years of US foreign policies directed @ the middle east. If you want to criticize the policies, show me an alternative. That is one thing I appreciate about Bush, he chose a course of action. Let me say that word again, ACTION. It may not be the right one but I can't imagine in the next 5-10 years Iraq will not be better off than it had been under Hussein (I just read an article a couple days ago saying they've just established sewage treatments these last few weeks. . .)
hfm,
I am pretty sure I get what you're saying. I also think America needs to truly re-evaluate our association with Israel. Not to mention I think the only way to get Israel to really sit down to the table and follow through with a peace process is if we begin to pull our unilateral support for them.
However, I fear pulling our interests out of the Middle East. That includes not only our weaponry but also our economic strength. Like Robin Williams said we could bomb Afghanistan in to the stone age and that would be an upgrade.
I believe the best examples we can take from history would be say Japan and Germany, former enemies that we helped rebuild in to economic superpowers.
You know how to write some good stuff. And, I pretty much agree with what you're saying. Let's not forget, and as I said above, I am not saying we should be changing our policies regarding Israel, that we should get out of the middle east or change our policies. Even though I made a point of saying that, I'm getting responses that suggest that is what I said. The alternatives I mention are infact, what I have heard are annoymous's theories. He made six points about Bin Laden's motivations and I just posted a few of them. Needless to say, some people will not listen with an open mind before rendering judgment.
I don't think we can treat Bin Laden like Japan and Germany. We can go around invading countries like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and rebuild them or try to rebuild them like we did Japan and German. But, it wont excise the cancer. Perhaps we need to pressure their governments to reign in the terrorists on their own on the threat of our going in and doing it for them.
So, how was your Wednesday night party? I'm going to have to join you on one of those nights.
I agree with everything in your last post, hfm (whose real name pete forgot). It's just that the previous ones didn't seem to say the same things.
Americans (and others) must understand what these wackos are after and that they are organized and lethal on a tactical level. I just don't think that it is necessary or even wise to attempt to alter or re-evaluate our middle east policy based on their motivations. Nor is it appropriate to assign ANY of the blame for what these people have done to the United States, Israel, or any of the actions of the Arab states, particularly the Saudis.
All of these states are trying to fix certain problems, and they have disagreements and sometimes even wars, but they are at least partially tied to reality. They are doing the best that they can. If we do something to piss off Turkey or Iraq or Iran I think that needs examining...but I don't give a damn why Osama bin Laden is pissed off. And I'm certainly not willing to question ANYBODY'S policy decisions at his request.
Pete (notes that hfm did not explicitly say we should do so, but that's where the conversation was heading)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Eh, the Wednesdays are off (got in to a disagreement between club owner and DJ, and couldn't reach a happy medium, plus our crowds were not that good... It just wasn't working right for everyone so I pulled the plug before making any real enemies)...
But, back on topic...
I personally believe the best way to reduce (and in the long run hopefully eliminate) terrorism is to offer them a better way of life. Bin Laden would not have people following him if those same teen and 20 something men had a good job, good friends, good family, aka prosperity. And yes, economics does have a great deal to do with it. If the people of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, etc see us working to restore power, establish water treatment facilities, rebuild roads (major construction is almost done in Afghanistan on one of the most important highways to link the country together which will in turn solidify economic interests across that country), and train people to protect their communities, teach their children, etc. than we will, I believe, treat the cancer by eliminating its source of tissue.
It still bothers me that the author of this book calls Afghanistan and Iraq "2 failed half-wars". First off, when did we actually fail? From a strategic military POV our objective (remove Hussein, claim relative control of Iraq) was accomplished. If Afghanistan we overthrew the taliban and are still in the process of uprooting al queda cells in the country. So I ask again, how did we fail, and also what makes them half wars?
I almost think I need a better synopsis and/or read the book myself.
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Book by CIA official slams US war on terrorism, Iraq
