| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:52 pm Post subject: 'Anonymous' Agent Blasts Israel Lobby |
| http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=5671&CategoryId=5
'Anonymous' Agent Blasts Israel Lobby
November 27, 2004
By Marc Perelman Since stepping down last week from his post as a senior CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer has hit the airwaves to criticize what he describes as America's inept approach to fighting the war on terror.
The arguments are not new — he laid them out in his recent best-selling book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror." The only difference is that while the book was published under the pseudonym Anonymous, Scheuer, who resigned earlier this month from the CIA, is now free to use his real name when blasting the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit in charge of the hunt for bin Laden between 1996 and 1999, has criticized the U.S. government for what he describes as missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden, a botched strategy in Afghanistan and the launching of a misguided war in Iraq.
One little-noticed aspect of his criticism, discussed in his recent book and elaborated in a recent interview with the Forward, is his view that Washington has failed to undertake a much-need reassessment of its policy toward Israel.
"It is in the self-interest of the United States to find a way to cut into the ability of bin Ladenism to grow in popularity and gather support in the Muslim world," Scheuer said in an interview last weekend. "I am not saying we need to abandon Israel, but there is a perception in the Islamic world that it is a case of the tail leading the dog.... America is not perceived as an honest broker, but as backing Israel unconditionally."
Scheuer claims that because of savvy lobbying, crucial policies in the Middle East — he cited America's unflinching support of both Israel and Saudi Arabia — have not been debated during the past 30 years.
Scheuer denied any antisemitic leanings, after he was asked about the critical assertion he made in his book, stating that Israel, with the aid of its network of American supporters, had demonstrated an uncanny ability to stifle such a debate in the United States. He reaffirmed his strong belief in Israel's deep influence over American policymaking.
"I admire what Israel has accomplished," he said. "As a former intelligence official, I wish our intelligence service could acquire a basis of support and the influence in the politics of another country like the ones Israel has established here."
While advocating bolder military and intelligence operations against radical Islamic terrorist networks, Scheuer argues those steps should be followed by a slate of economic and diplomatic initiatives, as well as policy changes, aimed at generating support for America in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
When pressed about his policy advice, Scheuer demurred, saying his thoughts were narrowly focused on American interests and that he was not a policy expert. Asked whether he was only criticizing the close relationship between President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he said he felt the United States was perceived as a more honest broker under President Clinton than it is now. "Still, we have a long record of doing things perceived as pro-Israel," he said. "My own view is that we should talk about it."
Scheuer also blasted what he characterized as the free pass still given to Saudi Arabia, arguing that bin Laden was a "poster boy" for Saudi ideology.
Scheuer maintained that bin Laden was still firmly in control of Al Qaeda and determined to strike the United States, possibly with weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear device. He said his assertions were drawn not so much from classified intelligence he had seen over the years, but rather from a careful reading of bin Laden's declarations.
"He has made his goals very clear," said Scheuer, who believes that bin Laden now has become a widely popular leader in the Muslim world and should be considered as such rather than as a thug. "No one should be surprised."
Scheuer said that after he recently complained to Congress that the CIA was not dedicating enough human resources to the analyst team working on bin Laden, the agency had assigned more personnel. Still, Scheuer said, it would take time to bring the new operatives up to date.
Scheuer is also part of the raging controversy engulfing the CIA since its incoming director, former GOP Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, clashed with senior agency officials, prompting several high-profile resignations. Goss drew criticism in some circles after announcing that the agency was expected to support the president's policies and not engage in partisan warfare.
The CIA's decision a few months ago to allow the publication of Scheuer's book has been perceived by the Bush administration and its supporters as a maneuver by the agency to respond to government criticism of its failures to prevent 9/11-style attacks and to assess accurately Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, recently blasted the CIA for operating like a "rogue agency."
Scheuer, who has turned his criticism toward the agency in recent weeks, said his writings were vetted by the agency, and that the decision to allow the publication was made by former CIA director George Tenet.
"Goss deserves a chance to run his own ship," said Scheuer, while adding that he deplored the resignation of two top officials from the CIA's directorate of operations. "What concerns me more is McCain's scurrilous statement.... He is generally viewed as a centrist, moderate senator and so this gives cover to Goss to conduct a political purge. If Goss wants to retain confidence in the CIA, he would have to ask McCain to retract the statement."
Source: ATFP | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:39 pm Post subject: They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom |
| TOP wrote:
Another report that will be ignored of course. Just like the whole state department is routinely ignored. This DSB report is 111 pages, but a must read for those unfamiliar with the nuances of the middle east:
'They hate our policies, not our freedom'
Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions.
11/24/04
Before ink dries, Iran wants exemptions
11/23/04
India and Pakistan continue high-level talks
11/22/04
Israel's Abu Ghraib?
Sign up to be notified daily:
Find out more.
The Defense Science Board, reports Disinfopedia, is "a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."
'The current Board is authorized to consist of thirty-two members plus seven ex officio members': the chairmen of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Policy, Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and Defense Intelligence Agency Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 'Members, whose appointed terms range from one to four years, are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science, technology and its application to military operations, research, engineering, manufacturing and acquisition process.'
China's Xinhuanet reported that the board's report criticized the US for failing in its efforts to communicate its military and diplomatic actions to the world, and the Muslim world in particular, "but no public relations campaign can save America from flawed policies." The report also takes the administration to task for talking about Islamic extremism in a way that offends many Muslims.
In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity – an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states].
MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature."
In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate "the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," but American efforts may have "achieved the opposite of what they intended."
Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the board called for the creation of a strategic communication's "apparatus" within the executive branch and "an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department."
If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way.
As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a 'clear channel of communication to the Muslim world' means that the US is losing the PR war to people that "saw off the heads of other Muslims."
Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.
The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board's report does not constitute official government policy, it captures "the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government."
EVERY MORNING, EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ THIS TWICE
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/01/22/every-morning-every-american-should-read-this-twice.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
