NYT: Book by CIA Officer Says U.S. Losing Fight against Terror

[DeepModem Mom]

INTELLIGENCE INSIDER
Book by C.I.A. Officer Says U.S. Is Losing Fight Against Terror
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: June 23, 2004


WASHINGTON, June 22 — A new book by the senior Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden and his followers warns that the United States is losing the war against radical Islam and that the invasion of Iraq has only played into the enemy's hands.

In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.

The 309-page book, obtained by The New York Times, provides an unusual glimpse into a school of thought inside the C.I.A., and includes harsh criticism of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "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."

The author says the threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/politics/23INTE.html

[qanda]

1. And you have to be a senior CIA officer to know this?

Man, I need to get a new job.

[Solly Mack]

2. No kidding

[FreakinDJ]

6. No Shit Sherlock

I was thinking the exact same thing when I first read the title of this thread.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. But for those people that don't keep up with what's happening....

...behind the scenes...roughly 60-70% of all Americans...this information will come as a real surprise. Those people still believe that we invaded Iraq for good reasons and may actually believe that WMDs were found, and that Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together on the planning for 911.

Additionally, the fact that this is coming from a senior CIA officer, a person that is still on the job, will add a great deal of credibility to the book.

JMHO.

[Saintgermane]

3. Prediction...

Right wing commentators will seize upon the "...wordwide Islamic insurgency..." line, and ignore the "..threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions..." line.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. US actions have only hurt

moderate and progressive Muslims who are also fighting the takeover of their faith by the fundamentalist extremists.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Were not doing too hot on the wars on drugs, poverty, etc., either n/t

[pretzel4gore]

7. maybe, maybe not, but losing fight against mediawhoring...

that's undoubtedly true. i guess corrupt, bushit 4 sale media not such a worry as are angry muslim schoolboys....
The hatred of the US and the principles the US supposedly represents is typified by this 'win-win' approach to bushit terror war......the vast secret service conglomerates maintained by the 'omnipotenti' need an enemy to justify their insane wasteful existence.....and faux criticism of the bushevik dingbats is SOOO politically correct, go over nicely in gated communities....
face it, the NY Times is a goddam liar...

[teryang]

8. Creating enemies is good for the bushista militarists

...if they didn't have enemies what would they do? They would have nothing to distract the public from their corruption, profiteering, and dismantling of the republic.

Every violent political opposition group in every country can now be labeled terrorists whether they are fighting to topple an absolutist monarchy, a corrupt dictatorship, or foreign invaders.

[Dirty Hippie]

10. This person is very scary - advocates all out war against Islam

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_20.php#003082

Without the option to work for reform, a large portion of what Anonymous advocates is essentially a policy of brutal and unforgiving war.


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

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

[Nyx]

12. Hmmm ...

Matthew Yglesias agrees with you:

"Holy Shit: I'm enough of a knee-jerk partisan that when I heard an anonymous important government official guy was about to publish a book arguing that George W. Bush was screwing everything up, I just assumed I would love it. I'm not enough of a knee-jerk partisan for that view to have survived this interview with Spencer Ackerman. Normally I welcome any intelligent and articulate contributions to the public discourse, but I'm not sure that putting a scorched earth strategy on the floor for debate is really the sort of thing the country needs. I also note, once again, that technically a scorched earth strategy entails destroying your own country, not that of the people you're fighting against, but we know what he means." http://www.matthewyglesias.com

OTOH, isn't Anonymous just saying that we have to STOP pursuing our "failed policies toward the Muslim world," because if we don't, a scorched-earth strategy will be our only recourse if we want to survive? He says such a policy is NOT admirable, or desirable, but that it's where we're headed if we don't shape up.

Maybe I'm misreading him (or just being naive), but I don't think he's advocating Armageddon ... just the opposite.

[Dirty Hippie]

13. More...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ (Close to the bottom of the page under the title "Spencer Ackerman's reply:")



That said, he (anonymous) does believe, and states at numerous points in the book (and reiterates in our interview), that we have no choice but to fight a very bloody battle. He writes in the concluding chapter, in a section titled “Cant Will Kill Us,” that:

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

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

As he adds in our interview, “My argument, I think, taken from the whole book, is that we've left ourselves with no option but the military option, and our application of military force against our foe, whether it's Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else, has not been particularly intimidating. They've ridden out two wars. They're on the offensive at the moment. What are we left with? If we don't use our military power, we really just sit and take it.”

[DeepModem Mom]

14. Welcome to DU, NYx! Thanks for your post --

[wryter2000]

15. Welcome to DU, Nyx

:hi:

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Nyx!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[flpoljunkie]

11. Two further must read paragraphs for the uninformed electorate...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/politics/23INTE.html

In the book, the author denounced the American invasion 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 Mr. 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," he 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 three thousand Al Qaeda foot soldiers." At the same time, he adds, "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."

___________

I fervently hope this book receives the media attention it deserves, and is not a one day story.