hmmmmm.......He must not know what he is talking about

[ThaSaltCracka]

This simply can't be true right? I thought the war on terror was succeding? he must be a liberal.

website (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=1506&e=4&u=/afp/20040623/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_cia_qaeda_040623131125)

Book by CIA official slams US war on terrorism, Iraq

Wed Jun 23, 9:11 AM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (AFP) - A book by an anonymous CIA (news - web sites) official titled "Imperial Hubris," describes Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) officer who from 1996 to 1999 headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) and his predecessor Bill Clinton (news - web sites), 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.


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."

[MMMMMM]

Well, here are some thoughts, not all necessarily related to the article cited:

There is a common problem with the way people measure success in the war on terror. The prevailing sentiment seems to be: if terror attacks are down, we are winning; if terror attacks are up, we are losing. This is used as a measuring stick to ajudge whether the war on terror is producing desirable overall results or not.

What is the problem with the above line of thinking? It is that the true measurement of succeeding is not current results vis-a-vis old results, but whether without the war on terror, results would have been better or worse than they have been recently.

Just because terror attacks may be roughly equal to what they were before the "war on terror" commenced, does not mean that without the war on terror, they might not have been even more--or even less. It is quite possible that without the preventative or proactive steps taken in the war on terror, we would have already suffered another 9/11 or equivalent. On the other hand it is possible (although extremely dubious in my opinion) that if we did not go into Aghanistan and Iraq, al-Qaeda wold have been satiated in their near-term appetite for destruction. But does anyone really believe that could be the case?

On the other hand, there is little doubt that some new terrorists are encouraged to take arms against the West because of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether the number of new terrorists "created" exceeds the number killed, is doubtful IMO but it could be so. However again it would be easy to look at this fallaciously, because the number of new terrorists also includes the number of new terrorists which would be maturing anyway (such as the products of the madrassas, the thousands of fanatical live-in religious schools in the Middle East and especially in Pakistan, which heavily indoctrinate youths and prepare them psychologically for jihad). So again, this is another thing that is hard to estimate even roughly.

No doubt, too, that some policies or actions contribute to the creation of terrorists. But that is a far cry from saying that such actions are the primary cause of the creation of terrorists. Terrorism has been around for quite some time now, and 9/11 happened before Afghanistan.

I believe the author is quite wrong if he asserts that the threat from radical Islam is rooted solely in American actions and not at all in the fundamental incompatibility of Islam with Western values. Time will tell the end result of this "clash of civilizations", as Samuel Huntington refers to this conflict in the macro scale.

The more the West actually learns about Islam, the more apparent the fundamental incompatibility will become. The more Islam and the West share living space, the more Westerners will come to see that this ideology is truly and inherently more foreign than anything they might have previously imagined.

There is no real room in Islam, philosophically speaking, for anything but following the word of God: and the word of God is laid out clearly in the Q'uran, good for all places and all times. Rationalism will be hard pressed to make any kind of a dent in such thinking, especially for those who have been so indoctrinated since childhood.

Perhaps more frighteningly, al-Qaeda is simply taking the injunctions of the prophet Mohammed absolutely literally.

We are facing the ultimate struggle between religious absolutism and secularism, and also the ultimate struggle between religion and rationalism. This struggle is going to be more traumatic than the Enlightenment and Age of Reason were in the Western world, because Islam is inherently more absolutist in its worldly demands than Christianity/Catholicism, and because the modern means of destruction are so much greater than the old.

Zeno may end up getting his wish after all.

[Utah]

Interesting - but contradictory it seems.

I like the line about fighting a worldwide islamic insurgency and not a war on terror. I am curious though, how can the author say that we are not fighting a war on terrorism and then say we are losing the war on terrorism?

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.
What would Mr. Anonymous have us do?

One guys opinion means very little - especially someone at this level.

[dogsballs]

Cracka,

I'm never sure how far your tongue is in your cheek when I read your posts.

That passage sounds to me like someone who does know what he's talking about; devoid of the distorted rose tinted heroes glasses many seem to want to wear.


How do you define success in the war on terror?

...killing some of the bad guys?

...reducing the threat to US/western citizens abroad?

...reducing the threat of attacks on US/western soil

...improving the image of the US abroad, to lessen recruitment to terrorist influences?


I can only count one of those as succeeding.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious though, how can the author say that we are not fighting a war on terrorism and then say we are losing the war on terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]
Well I think thats his point. We aren't fighting the terrorist per se so therefor we are losing the "war" on terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
One guys opinion means very little - especially someone at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]
True one guys opinion means very little, but you never know what his level is. But you have to admit he makes some very interesting points.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm never sure how far your tongue is in your cheek when I read your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all I am a very sarcastic person so if you don't know me very well I am sure you probably don't know what I mean. I was trying to make a joke that all people who dissent against the war on terrorism are somehow liberals or "morons". I supported the war in Iraq initially, but after the fact I feel incredibly dumb for that. It seems like every week we hear new "experts" claiming the war in Iraq is a failure and it has weakened the "war" on terrorism, and I would have to agree. I don't feel safer now that Saddam is gone. I actually feel worse, because it seems now more people hate us around the world.

I posted the article because I thought it was interesting and seems to further show how much is going wrong in the war on terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define success in the war on terror?

...killing some of the bad guys?

...reducing the threat to US/western citizens abroad?

...reducing the threat of attacks on US/western soil

...improving the image of the US abroad, to lessen recruitment to terrorist influences?

[/ QUOTE ]
We have killed many bad guys but I don't feel safer, and I am not sure if it has made Al-Qaeda less likely to attack. In fact it has probably made them want to attack us even more, however because we have killed so many of them it is probably harder for them to do so. US citizens aren't safer abroad now, in fact they seem to be targets. I guess U.S. soil is safer, but even many experts say its only a matter of time. I am not sure if they are scaring us though. I think the image of the U.S. abroad is probably the worse its been in a long time, hopefully WHOEVER is elected in November can do something to change that.

[dogsballs]

oh right.

I should have given more weight to your south park avatar there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

exactly /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"I supported the war in Iraq initially, but after the fact I feel incredibly dumb for that. It seems like every week we hear new "experts" claiming the war in Iraq is a failure and it has weakened the "war" on terrorism, and I would have to agree. I don't feel safer now that Saddam is gone. I actually feel worse, because it seems now more people hate us around the world."

My most sincere congratulations on your reading abilities.

I must remember to play against you from behind a lead screen and talking through a non-English speaking third party.

[ThaSaltCracka]

?