Michael Scheuer --- views on the post-Osama atmosphere

[Toramana]

Here is this interview.

"Following is the full transcript of an interview I conducted this week with Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA unit charged with tracking Osama bin Laden. Scheuer is author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris. His latest book, Osama bin Laden, was published earlier this year."

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallas...person-mi.html

[ghundal]

Osamas death does not change anything on the ground in terms of the Afghan failure. It in fact had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

On the contrary, the foreign war of aggression which has led to the countless deaths of Afghan civilians remains to be the reason the US has failed in Afghanistan.

It matters not how one disguises a defeat as Scheuer says.

The foreign presence is the barrier to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, and the greater region.

US intervention and terrorism go hand in hand. As US intervention is failing, terrorism has died out.

The civilized world has realized that US intervention is the root of global insecurity.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Here is this interview.

"Following is the full transcript of an interview I conducted this week with Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA unit charged with tracking Osama bin Laden. Scheuer is author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris. His latest book, Osama bin Laden, was published earlier this year."

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallas...person-mi.html

What are your thoughts on this?

[Alchemist]

Why does the views of an ex-CIA agent matter so much to you?

Then what's the right way to go about it?

The next time we need to deploy an army to defend ourselves, we need to annihilate the enemy. All the talk about "the military option has been tried" is really nonsense. If this is all the power that the American people have paid for over the past 30 years, since the end of the cold war, and this is the best we can do, it really is a shame. Any war can be won if you kill enough of the enemy and their supporters.
Do we have to be willing to kill a lot of civilians?
Absolutely.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Why does the views of an ex-CIA agent matter so much to you?

Because he sees the world as it is ... not as he wants it to be. He takes evidence and bases his formulations off of that.

For instance, he isnt fed a party line about some phantom Arab imperialism and then goes with it... he observes a phenomena and traces it to its roots.

He is as close to a scientific analyst of the Bin ladin phenomena as we can find.

Take for instance his commentary on war... and why Bin Ladin understood what it took in assymmetric battle. That commentary shows me that he is leagues above the "must be accepted by the West" Muslims who make the absurd contention that "Islamic warfare bans all civilian deaths wholesale." That, if taken to the extreme means that no war can be fought ever. In the modern era, as we are witnessing in Libya, when an untrained and outgunned enemy is fighting a superior force utilizing its killing machinary, that sort of absurd and uninformed commentary about how Mr. Bin ladin supposedly misinterprted orthodox Islamic law is idiotic at best and criminal at worst.

[faye]

it seems hypocritical to say that america created it's own enemies but we should have blown the crap out of afghanistan, civilians and all.
he appears to me to cover up the real neocon,multinational,zionist perpetrators of the wars and blames obama or bush or osama.

[Alchemist]

Because he sees the world as it is ... not as he wants it to be. He takes evidence and bases his formulations off of that.

For instance, he isnt fed a party line about some phantom Arab imperialism and then goes with it... he observes a phenomena and traces it to its roots.

He is as close to a scientific analyst of the Bin ladin phenomena as we can find.

Take for instance his commentary on war... and why Bin Ladin understood what it took in assymmetric battle. That commentary shows me that he is leagues above the "must be accepted by the West" Muslims who make the absurd contention that "Islamic warfare bans all civilian deaths wholesale." That, if taken to the extreme means that no war can be fought ever. In the modern era, as we are witnessing in Libya, when an untrained and outgunned enemy is fighting a superior force utilizing its killing machinary, that sort of absurd and uninformed commentary about how Mr. Bin ladin supposedly misinterprted orthodox Islamic law is idiotic at best and criminal at worst.

Absurd is the belief that an Ex-CIA agent is not biased and has no vested interest at all when he speaks about "the war on terror".

One more question, Sir.
I would genuinely like to know:

Do you believe that Osama bin Laden orchestrated 9/11?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Absurd is the belief that an Ex-CIA agent is not biased and has no vested interest at all when he speaks about "the war on terror".

One more question, Sir.
I would genuinely like to know:

Do you believe that Osama bin Laden orchestrated 9/11?

Sure, its a question that is easily answered.

Answer: Does it matter?

Why that is the best answer to the question is that if we take up the worst case scenario..., let us say that he did it. Even then, so what? The average American (MDresden) becomes red, flustered, starts stammering, begins to sweat and sputters: "wha, wha, wha whaat the hell do you mean you sand monkey? that rag head killed 3000 of our citizens in one fowel swoop (two actually, but we will let that go). Go home."

In comparison, the American Muslim that has not learned to see through eyes other than the Western ones he has on loan gives his Hamza Yusufian or CAIR positive answer to the extent of some absurd comment about how only a Caliph can declare war, how a 12th century fatwa actually was misinterpreted, and how holy war means struggle with the self. I suspect a part of this is self preservation in a hostile environment or the desire to fit in or reconcile belief systems. Because when Mr. Bin Ladin and his comrades were fighting the Russians, these same Muslims called him war hero, self sacrificing, devout, and pious and were all to happy to hob nob in Washington for more aggressive funding, arms, and support for the fight against Communism under this banner. Some would answer that during this era, no one was flying planes into Moscow buildings. Bull Biscuits, Islamists were, with the blessings of Muslims around the world, seeping into Muslim ethnic heavy provinces of the USSR and doing operations.

Why I gloss over these sorts of emotional answers to the most relevent answer to your question (i.e. does it matter?) is that both miss the mark.

So let us run with the worst case scenario and accept, purely for the sake of discussion, that Mr. Bin Ladin did indeed do this act. This raises the following question that the American and the American Muslim must address:

1) Why did he do it? The answer to this question appear to be found in his words. Pretty much all of his published statements center him being pissed that America was A) Occupying Saudi Arabia and establishing permanent bases in Islam's most holy land. B) Using bases in A) to bomb and kill other Muslims C) Stealing the Muslim resource wealth despite attempts to sell it at a fair market share price D) Unmitigated support of Israel in terms of arms and dollars. E) Propping up tyrannies across the Muslim world ala Sadaat and Mubarak.

2) Did he have evidence that America did such acts? Yep, starting from Kermit Roosevelt's open CIA support for Operation Ajax in Iran, which led to the installation of the Brutal Shah, to the British/American support for the Saudi Monarchy that subverted Islamic law to the absurd point of breaking the Prophet Muhammad's dictum of having no non Muslim troops stationed in "land of the two mosques," to the acknowledged fact that Israel was armed to the teeth by the US, he appeared to have a series of historical facts on his side regarding American interventionalism. Other examples of this were American support and marine barracks in Lebanon that resulted in even more blowback and the death of a marine platoon. Yet another example is the initial support of Saddam Hussein to kill Iranians and then, as wikileaks has now definitively shown, giving him, through Ambassador Glaspie, the tacit green light to invade Kuwait to allow the US to destroy him (i.e. we realized we had armed him a little too much and he posed a threat to our tyranny next door in Saudi and to Israel). A great evidence is the obvious irony of an American lead, UN implemented arms embargo in the Balkans that led to the Serbs gaining large amounts of arms, under the table, with which to kill generally unarmed Bosnian Muslims... the irony lies in the fact that after much killing had been done, and Izetbegovic's hands had been tied... did America sweep in claiming the the savior mantle. More recently, America's endorsement of Russian action in Chechnya and Chinese action in the Xuigar provinces has created another situation in which America decided, without any relevent need, to endorse brutal reppression of Muslim populations vying for independence... all the while America lauds the separation of East Timor and the Christian Sudanese provinces.

3) With the above in mind... how many people died as a result of America's aggressive tactics and actions in these instances? Do you think it surpasses 3,000, that magical number that gets thrown around because 3,000 American lives appear to equal a few million lives abroad?

4) With 3) in mind... do you really think that Americans who understand history ought to not have expected that in the yolk being thrown on some million people, one guy wouldn't finally get pissed off enough to actually want to deal with the common link that propped up and fueled all these aggressive interventionalist tactics in the Muslim world?

Its like Matty Dresden is telling a group of people on whose neck he has a military, dictatorial, and economic boot to enjoy the sensation of his dock martins on their neck. Its profound ignorance and idiocy in concert.

5) Was diplomacy employed by the deceased party before resorting to retribution attacks meant to lure America into a war of attrition? It appears so... the documentation and evidence trail supports attempts by Bin Ladin to discuss the Saudi Kingdom dealing with Saddam itself. Rather, prior to the American presence in the peninsula, it appeared that Bin Ladin was fairly comfortable settling down in the Saudi Peninsula without raising a peep. However, per the defensive holy war doctrine, the minute an American boot hit the ground in Saudi, he believed it obligated him to fight and drive out these occupiers from the land that 1.5 billion Muslims view as sacred. However, he was jailed when he tried to raise the issue of Saudi self sufficiency.

6) Contrary to what Nick asserts, to this day there is neither proof nor evidence that this individual killed Abdul Azzam as the historical record shows that they remained respectful friends with divering management viewpoints. In fact, Abdul Azzam's son in law and others refuse to label Mr. Bin Ladin as the killer of Azzam despite their complete disagreement on tactics:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-loyalties-idUSTRE7436RV20110504

7) There is no proof at all, rather there is contrary proof that this individual every recieved a dime or a single bullet from the CIA. Rather the CIA indicates that he refused to allow them in.

So the issue here is not whether Bin Ladin did 9/11 or not... its that 9/11 was not time point 0 on the x-axis of world events. Americans, as Scheuer so eloquently lays out in his words above, have to accept that it is our actions in the Muslim world that had led to the death of 3,000 people. If this sounds like Blame America First rhetoric, then I'm guilty as charged. Americans have more information access at their fingertips than any other nation on earth or any super power before it. Therefore, its denizens have the duty to understand its conflicts.

We can discuss the tactics of luring someone into a war of attrition, using Afghanistan as the place to do so, and the concept of fighting the near enemy and far enemy in Islamic doctrine some other time.

Regarding Scheuer's CIA background... I think that makes him all the more credible. You are reading his work with emotion. You have to understand that he is an analyst offering Americans the options that lead to victory which really are

1) Stop intervening in the Muslim world and save your national spirit from corruption (per his repeated references to the founding father writings)

2) If you do not opt to do 1) then understand that intervention means war... and war means killing...

That, at least, is my read of Michael Scheuer's work... he prefers the noble route, but wants to ensure that America understands what winning means should it choose the route of Empire above the Republic.

[Alchemist]

I asked you your own opinion

instead you started to draw out on hypotheticals

What is your opinion?

Do you believe he did it?

Yes or No?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I asked you your own opinion

instead you started to draw out on hypotheticals

What is your opinion?

Do you believe he did it?

Yes or No?

Perhaps "the baby" wants to answer your question.

The problem with answering that question is that it provides fodder for irrelevent discussion. The smart answer to that question is: who cares? It doesnt matter.

Otherwise, you allow the American public to be fed its cow maneuer that Scheuer writes about. He notes that the public needs to hate the enemy to beat it... so it psyches itself up based on the premise that America is some Gomer Pyle style school boy walking along minding its own business when out of the blue some big bad black bearded Arab man smacked Gomer across the head. The problem with that narrative is that it ignores the complexities of why America was hated by Bin Ladin. So it forces them to veer away from the question they pertend to ask of: why do they hate us?

I prefer the Ron Paul school of thought which is more based on what led up to the action were he to have done it.

Regarding the Muslim theologeons who dance around the issue of legitimate war, etc. I think they too have to define how they suddenly OK'd the presence of non Muslim occupying forces in the Arabian Peninsula as legitimate despite the Prophet himself ordering that to not happen. If anything qualified for warfare under the defensive doctrine in Islamic theology, that would take the cake.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I dont know, this charismatic Doctor Barakzai is someone my daddy would probably want me to stay away from since I am a baby! He sounds like he might forget that he can live a good life as a doctor... but instead from his writings and prayer trances (I read at a preschool level which is good for a baby!) I'm worried he is going to end up shot by a SEAL team next to a toy water gun in some secluded compound. I wish my daddy was a doctor! Go night night Dr. Barakzai, dont answer questions or think too much. Be like me... or like Matt Dresden since he has a baby IQ. But what do I know? Im just a baby.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I live in hospitals. I am talking about ideas and rationalizing them. A discussion does not denote that I support a view. I am explaining a view. Tell your father he need not worry about me.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I asked you your own opinion

instead you started to draw out on hypotheticals

What is your opinion?

Do you believe he did it?

Yes or No?

So I Alchemist, I guess the answer to your question ought to be reflexively, and passionatly, and unabatingly to the Dresdens:

1) If he did it... why do you think he did it?
2) If you provide the right reasons for the answer to question 1, then what methodology would you have employed were you in his stead?

[faye]

does it matter? hmmmm.....yeah, i would say it does matter, b.a. if he didn't do it, since it hasn't been proven, that he did, the world right now, would be a different place. they had been planning the attack on saddam for many years but without this 9/11 event it may have been a bit more difficult for your brothers with arms, to go in there. afghanistan would possibly still be living how they were and the propaganda machine would not have the grist for the mill bs against muslims.
gee....b.a. you have really suprised me.
if it wasn't done by bin laden, then someone else did it and one would then have to ask, who?

[Alchemist]

So I Alchemist, I guess the answer to your question ought to be reflexively, and passionatly, and unabatingly to the Dresdens:

1) If he did it... why do you think he did it?
2) If you provide the right reasons for the answer to question 1, then what methodology would you have employed were you in his stead?

I pity you "men of education" because you can't even have an opinion of your own unless it is voiced by some priestly institution.


What is so abstract and hypothetical about the simple question - Did he do it?

Instead you are going on a tangent of "did he have motive". Is this how it is now? You have completely adopted the rhetoric of Bush and Obama . "Let's screen brown people with beareds at the airports because they have motive".
More importantly, did he have the means to do it?

The answer to your question 1 is simple - I don't "think" he did it.

Now can you do it?

Did he do it?

[MDresden]

The civilized world has realized that US intervention is the root of global insecurity.

Just wanted to point out the trash this person is speaking. "Civilized world" as in comparison to who?