Saturday, April 28, 2007

The Iraq War Makes Terrorism Worse, Al Qaeda Strikes Back, Tenet Took the Fall

But Bush will cite his failure in Iraq as reasons the US must stay and be bled. The prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine declares that "rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden" has made terrorism worse, emboldened Al Qaeda, and taken the focus off the "War on Terrorism". Washington unwittingly helped its enemies, Author Bruce O. Riedel states, adding: "... al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11."

Al Qaeda is now setting up networks throughout the Middle East and Africa amid terrorist hopes that it will succeed in duping Bush into committing US troops to a war in Iran.
Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, having several of its top operatives killed, failing in its attempts to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq.
Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas. Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign to make himself and his movement the primary symbols of Islamic resistance worldwide. His ideas now attract more followers than ever.
--Al Qaeda Strikes Back, Bruce Riedel, Forreign Affairs 
Riedel is verifiably correct. His paper echoes and expands an earlier US intel assessment that the Iraq war increases the threat of terrorism.
The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.
The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
--Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat  
The implications are astounding: Bush has been duped. His invasion and occupation of Iraq played into Bin Laden's hands. Bin Laden's goals are simple: "bait" the US into a "bleeding war[s]". His strategy is equally simple - "provoke and bait". Tragically, Bush eagerly took the bait while Iraqi civilians and US troops do the bleeding.

The findings are damning. Bush is clearly seen to be the fool, the idiot who committed his nation to a war that is better compared to the Soviet conflict with Afghanistan in the 1980s than with the US quagmire in Viet Nam. Bin Laden himself is said to have made the analogy.

Despite Bush's obvious and tragic failure, he and his NEOCON supporters will nevertheless cite both the Intel report and the Foreign Policy assessment as reasons the US must stay in Iraq - perhaps forever. Bush will claim that leaving Iraq, demoralized will "embolden" al Qaeda and allow it to focus on nearby enemies - Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Earlier the BBC had stated: "al-Qaeda is far more fluid and effective than the West's conventional response has suggested." Never an army, al Qaeda has been turned into a movement in reaction. The US occupation of Iraq is not merely the lightening rod, it is the perpetual al Qaeda poster boy. Bush has done Bin Laden a favor. Al Qaeda could not boast an Iraqi presence until the US attacked and invaded.

Earlier, it was clear: the GOP and Democrats would separate from the ink blot different "figures". The GOP will see reasons to stay put. The Democrats will see in the Bush failure compelling reasons to change course:
"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."
--ABC News: Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat
But Bush partisans will seize upon the following passage from Foreign Affairs to justiy compounding the crime, repeating the failed strategy:
Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the US homeland again.
At this point, the American people will have to ask themselves: are Bush's dimming hopes of defeating a phantom menace worth risking the Soviet-style collapse of the US? Having repeatedly put good money on bad bets, are the American people ready to pony up yet again?

Despite having a majority in both houses, it is the Democrats who have the greater challenge. Bush is a lame duck. Unless he suspends the elections upon another terrorist attack, his utterly failed administration is history and good riddance.

There is some good news. Bill Moyers is back.

May the US find the will and moral strength to rise above the stench Bush and his crooked ilk will have left behind. Bush can merely wash his hands of the entire affair and, if he were a real cowboy, he could merely ride off into the West Texas sunset. It is left to Harry Reid to conduct real statesmanship for a welcome change. From Reid's recent statement:
Yet I also believe there is a way forward that gives us our best chance to end the war responsibly while protecting our strategic interests, strengthening our security, and better positioning us to provide the long-term assistance Iraq will need for years to come.

This way forward is consistent with our military leaders are telling us, including General Petraeus -- who repeated again yesterday that this war can only be won politically, not militarily. Our path has five key components:
  1. First, immediately transition the US mission away from policing a civil war -- to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting US forces and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.
  2. Second, begin the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007 with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out the limited missions I just mentioned.
  3. Third, impose tangible, measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government so that they will be held accountable for making progress on security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much.
  4. Fourth, launch the kind of diplomatic, economic and political offensive that the president's strategy lacks, starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.
  5. Fifth, rebuild our overburdened military, ensure that only battle ready troops are sent into battle, and give them the manpower and support they need to face the daunting challenges that lie ahead. Congressman Murtha pointed out last night that we are currently paying 126,000 independent contractors to supplement the work of our soldiers. Contractors that aren't held to the same standards or accountability our troops are, yet many earn more than our Secretary of Defense. This is unacceptable. 
                   --Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid

The history of the US with regard to the Middle East is one of blunder, tragedy and reverberations left over from the "cold war". Terrorism fed on US policy failures too numerous to count, most prominently its support of dictatorial states and puppet regimes, its proclivity to rule illegitimately by proxy.

Years later, then US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski would boast:
"The secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap." What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire?"
          --Source

The history is consistent with recent charges by former CIA Director George Tenet who claims he took the fall for the Bushies:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

10 comments:

benmerc said...

"Despite Bush's obvious and tragic failure, he and his NEOCON supporters will nevertheless cite both the Intel report and the Foreign Policy assessment as reasons the US must stay in Iraq - perhaps forever"

Well, reasoning certainly fits into the perpetual war syndrome, something Neo-cons have professed from their conception. This administration has constantly made statements that signify long term permanent American military presence in that region.

If my memory serves me, wasn't that bin Ladens initial beef when we did not pull out the Saudi troop contingency after the first Gulf war? I just can not understand why these obvious facts of cause and effect are continuously avoided in the public debate, of any political group. Oh yeah, Mike Gravel mentioned this in the Democratic debate last week, now CNN is banning him from their debate forum...I must have forgot....there are some things not to be mentioned in national debate...like the TRUTH.

Anonymous said...

Ramtanu Maitra in the Asia Times gives a telling account of current Western efforts to constrain the influence of China and Russia in the Middle East - through support for Islamic terrorist groups. He explains US and UK support for despot leaders like Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov and also their covert and diplomatic efforts in places like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. These actions are designed to exercise influence in these former Russian states by fomenting anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiment and to establish US and UK influence. It's effectively a covert foreign policy program against China and Russia. And it involves Western support for terrorism with echoes of US support for the Taliban against the Russians, and in Chechnya.

"What has changed significantly since the1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, is its integration with the 'free world', and that process has made Central Asia economically decrepit and turned it into a hotbed of transnational Islamic militants, controlled and funded by outside forces. Recently, the Kyrgyz media reported of personnel of the country's border control services saying that the illegal entry of foreign nationals and individuals without any citizenship into Kyrgyzstan was on the rise. What is important to note is that these militants were not parachuted out of airplanes: they are coming through Afghanistan and Pakistan. It could very well be a ticking time bomb for India, China and Russia. "

The two leading groups acting there are the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Hizbut-Tehrir (HT).

"While the IMU openly thrives on violence, the HT is strongly promoted by the United Kingdom, where it is headquartered, as peaceful. But records indicate that that the IMU and the HT work hand-in-hand. Most of the IMU recruits are from the HT, according to Rohan Gunaratna, an expert on world terrorist outfits. Gunaratna claims that Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the US, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian of Chechen origin who has remained active in the Iraqi insurgency against the US occupying forces, were both once members of the HT. "

According to Maitra, the creator of this foreign policy program is a former UK intelligence officer Bernard Lewis whose views have been taken up by UK and US foreign policy planners and Intelligence officials. Here's Lewis' views as presented in a Time magazine article:

"In the long run there may even be targets of opportunity for the West created by ferment within the crescent. Islam is undoubtedly compatible with socialism, but it is inimical to atheistic communism. The Soviet Union is already the world's fifth largest Muslim nation. By the year 2000, the huge Islamic populations in the border republics may outnumber Russia's now dominant Slavs. From Islamic democracies on Russia's southern tier, zealous Koranic evangelism might sweep across the border into these politically repressed Soviet states, creating problems for the Kremlin ... Whatever the solution, there is a clear need for the US to recapture what [Henry] Kissinger calls the 'geopolitical momentum'. That more than anything else will help maintain order in the crescent of crisis."

Lewis convinced Brzezinski that "Koranic evangelism" could be a very useful political tool against Russia in the long term. His views are still widely supported and followed by the current US administration. Richard Perle, leading US neo-conservative and adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had this to say:

"Bernard Lewis has been the single-most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West."

And that is why both the US and the UK are supporting islamic insurgency groups to this day in places like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. And why the avowedly jihadist group Hizbut-Tehrir can operate with impunity in London. The 'war on terror' is a highly selective war, the difference being these are our terrorists not theirs. (link)

Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly it is true that al Qaeda exists and is conducting actions against Western interests and in the Middle East. But the general public is starting to question the the 'one size fits all' model and the nexus between islamic terrorism (al Qaeda) and colonial wars such as Iraq and Iran. It's a debate that's been a long time coming.

Along these lines, I've just been reading about the Jundallah terrorist organization in Baluchistan with its ties to al Qaeda. They have carried out a series of terrorist attacks and bombings in south eastern Iran. Iran has displayed samples of allegedly captured Jundallah armaments with "Made in USA" stamped all over them. Abdul Hameed Reeki is the chief spokesman of the Jundallah group and was interviewed by the UK's Sunday Telegraph (17 Jan 2006). "Asked whether the satellite telephone he was holding might not lead to his being located, he allowed himself a smile. 'We are not fighting against America,' he said. Support for Jundallah was growing, he said. 'There are hundreds of others who are desperate to sign in, but we ask them to wait because we do not have enough weapons or camps.'" (link).

Which squares well with the fact that a bipartisan Congress recently appropriated millions of dollars in aid to Iranian "resistance" groups, with practically no oversight as to how that money was to be spent. Makes you wonder who the terrorists are, doesn't it? To gain some perspective on this, what would we think if China's government funded and armed US nationals as terrorists in order to bring down the US government. Sound friendly to you?

There is also the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group listed as a terrorist organization by the US. No American can deal with it; US banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. According to Shirwan al-Wa'eli, Iraq's national security minister, the MEK has recently been given a six month deadline to leave the country: "[the MEK] gets protection from the US military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country," and "regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf." (link) (link)

This group has been credited with a series of recent terrorist bombings in Iran. So why does the US allow itself to be implicitly involved in supporting terrorism against its very own anti-terrorist laws? Why is the US (supported by the UK) using terrorist proxies to bomb and destabilise Iran, a country with which it is not at war?

The US is currently financing and arming terrorists in Iran such as Jundallah and Sunni groups with ties to al Qaeda in Lebanon and Syria.

So the Lewis Doctrine is still well and truly in play.

benmerc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
benmerc said...

"This group has been credited with a series of recent terrorist bombings in Iran. So why does the US allow itself to be implicitly involved in supporting terrorism against its very own anti-terrorist laws? Why is the US (supported by the UK) using terrorist proxies to bomb and destabilise Iran, a country with which it is not at war?"


Well, thats part of the "Do as I say, not as I do" syndrome typical of authoritarian behavior. Just as we have given a get out of jail free pass for the wanted Cuban terrorist just recently in Miami. The excuse was: "Well, he will surely be executed if we allow his extradition..." Hmmmmm, if I recall we have recently executed (allowed by handing over) those we considered terrorist state leaders, and certainly will execute others that are currently on trial, when the verdict is in.

I will not even try to understand the ramifications of what is depicted by international intelligence personal... ours, our allies or anyone else's agents. These people have muddled the waters and played these geo-political games for years, their masters being the corporate and/or military power bases of both eastern and western super powers.

One would have thought that after the cold war had dissipated (to some degree) much of this idiocy would have subsided, to a larger degree. Apparently not. We are stuck with this regressive world view of geo-politics, thanks to the like of Henry Kissinger and his ilk, always there to qualify the reining special interests. But it seems all of the post WWII conditions have changed and the new complexities of that region (many initiated by U.S.) have finely spiraled out of control, and the only way we seem fit to deal with it is to bomb, invade & occupy. Sounds like a recipe for our own extinction.

I am certainly no scholar of middle east geo-politics, but I stand by my over simplifications in what I perceive as what has transpired there. I do not have any practical answers, other then ultimately these people and their nation states must somehow work out their regional issues, with little meddling from the outside, because it really seems we have caused a greater harm.

It's not that don't believe a truly independent group of an international coalition could not help, but who will fund this group? Certainly not the international players that exist in the region currently...they are much of, if not all the cause of this condition, as the end game is, and has always been resource greed.

The radical Islamics and the political power structures behind them will more then likely take a generation or two to subside, under ideal conditions, or so it seems. While this current movement continues to build, I hope we are able to forward more then reactionary or self serving efforts in mediating our involvement with this movement (which, as you have pointed out was clearly plied by western policies and efforts).

Until we rid ourselves of the Neo-con and old world views as of the ilks of Kissinger type ideologies, we will get absolutely no where, and continue to sink further into quagmire. Until we as a species turn our concerns to all our surrounding siblings in a truly humanitarian way, will we not gain ground on ending these killing field issues that plague global conditions. We for the most part have done this for marine mammals, (to a large extent) why can't we do it for our own kind?

Allen Branson said...

Len,

I can't wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I really don't think Bush has been duped.

One unjustifiable (in my opinion) assumption being made in all discussions of terrorism is that any of these terrorist groups actually exist in the form in which they are presented to us. There is evidence that is well worth looking at that bin Laden has been dead for some time, that the tape of him release just before the 2004 election was forged and that the alleged leader of al qaeda in Iraq that the U.S. claimed to have killed was, at the same time, in a prison in Egypt.

We have to ask the fundamental question. Are we even being told the truth about the the terrorists? We are putting a lot of faith in a group of psychopaths who've already shown they have no qualms at all about cooking intelligence to get their way.

It could very well be, though I'm not saying absolutely that I'm right, that the real duping going on here is of the American public. The pathocrats have defined the terms of the discussion for us and we have taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

Unknown said...

Allen Branson said...

I really don't think Bush has been duped. One unjustifiable (in my opinion) assumption being made in all discussions of terrorism is that any of these terrorist groups actually exist in the form in which they are presented to us.

On that point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In its inception, Al Qaeda, literally the base, was a creation of the CIA in Afghanistan. Much of what is attributed to Al Qaeda is probably the work of sympathizers by this time. For quite some time now, al Qaeda resembles more a movement than an organization. If al Qaeda existed in any form, it could be exploited for any number of nefarious purposes to include 911. And, in those days, it was Colin Powell, as I recall, who was the first to issue a statement specifically blaming al Qaeda for 911. But that's not inconsistent with my growing belief that Bush was duped. Indeed, the NEOCONS are given too much credit. None of them are particularly bright. Richard Perle, for example, is barely articulate though, I am sure, he thinks himself a great intellect. Wolfowitz, likewise, is no bright spark. Of them, Bush is the most stupid.

There is evidence that is well worth looking at that bin Laden has been dead for some time, that the tape of him release just before the 2004 election was forged and that the alleged leader of al qaeda in Iraq that the US claimed to have killed was, at the same time, in a prison in Egypt.

I agree. Many of those tapes are most surely bogus. Some of the statements are stylistically suspicious. The alleged video tape of Bin Laden laughing about 911 is worth an expert analysis. It just doesn't look like Bin Laden.

We have to ask the fundamental question. Are we even being told the truth about the terrorists?

No, of course not. We've been lied to about everything. This is, after all, an illegitimate coup d'etat, itself premised upon the lie that Bush won Florida.

We are putting a lot of faith in a group of psychopaths who've already shown they have no qualms at all about cooking intelligence to get their way.

I have NO faith in these folk to do anything right. It follows that they will do everything wrong. Historically, Hitler looked very bright, even genius, as long as he was winning. When the tide turned, he suddenly didn't look so smart. Had Hitler been duped? On several occassions. For example, during the Battle of Britain, the Nazis never caught on that the British knew their every move well before the event. The tragic downside of all that would be felt on the Russian front. Though allies, Churchill did not trust Stalin and when Hitler massed troops on the Russian border, Churchill kept mum about it. The ethics of that decision are debatable and good positions can be made on both sides. Churchill, bluntly, was willing to sacrifice millions of Russian lives rather than reveal to Stalin that the British had broken the Enigma code. Not only Hitler but Stalin had been duped.

It could very well be, though I'm not saying absolutely that I'm right, that the real duping going on here is of the American public.

That is precisely right. The American public, sadly, is easily duped. There is no other explanation for Bush.

Unknown said...

benmerc said...

So why does the US allow itself to be implicitly involved in supporting terrorism against its very own anti-terrorist laws?

Good question, benmerc. But the US does this repeatedly. By my definition repeating a failed strategy in the expectation of achieving a different result is the very definition of stupidity. That's why Bush IS a dupe.

In evidence, I cite Ronald Reagan's record. As RR waged his own "war on terrorism", terrorist attacks tracked by the FBI, tripled over a period of some two years. Terrorist attacks were high well into GHW Bush's administration and did not begin to abate until Clinton became President. I call that failure.

I call the act of playing into the hands of terrorists "being a dupe". Like our own ideologues, terrorists themselves need an "enemy" to exploit. Terrorist "organizers" must love Bush more than his own mom. He is their recruitment poster boy. Assuming that Bin Laden is still alive, what success would he have recruiting if he had NO US idiocy to point to?

I say to both US imperialism AND bona fide terrorists:

A plague o' both your houses!

Get off our world!

BTW - I think "Romeo and Juliet" is an allegory of the Protestant/Catholic struggle in Elizabethan England. Relatives of Shakespeare (himself a closet Catholic, most probably) were brutally and publically executed not far from the present day Smithfield Market.

Anonymous said...

Can't believe how many of you boneheads still ascribe to the myth that al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. Wake up and do some research.

Unknown said...

No one here subscribes to that myth. You haven't been reading this blog, have you?