Former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit comments on the Bergdahl swap.....

[calitennis127]

Michael Scheuer is one of my favorite policy analysts. Unlike pretty much everyone in government and in the media, he actually knows something about the Middle East and looks at reality clearly and in great detail. He has been a major critic of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the movement among the likes of John "Knowledge as cheap as McDonald's" McCain to have the U.S. intervene in Syria or Iran. At the same time, he is not a leftist dolt who denies the threat of Islamic militancy in the world due to a mixture of severe ignorance and contempt for Christianity.

Now one way in which Scheuer is at odds with standard critics of Islam is that he insists that modern jihadist terrorism against the West is the result of "what we do, not who we are"; in fact, his punch line has often been "they hate us for what we do, not who we are". So, he will say, for instance, that the 9/11 hijackers didn't attack us because we watch Beyonce and Britney music videos, but because our foreign policy in the Middle East deeply inflames anti-Western passions in the Muslim world. This, I believe, makes a great deal of sense, even though I don't think that there is much doubt that certain Qu'ranic verses as well as hadiths and Islamic legal strictures provide quite a bit of fodder for holy war against the infidel. That said, if you know about Bin Laden, he didn't single out the United States as a target or imagine attacking them (whoops, shouldn't say "them" because Lincoln consolidated the "U.S." into one entity) until the 1991 Gulf War when U.S. troops were stationed in the Islamic Holy Land. That intervention inspired Bin Laden to retaliate. On this basis, it is fair to say that both the Democrats and Republicans are utterly clueless and incompetent when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, among other matters.

Anyway, I think this is a great article. Scheuer actually knows something about the Middle East and the individuals who the U.S. government handed back to the Taliban, which places him in a class of about 8 people in the entire U.S.

Enjoy and discuss:

http://non-intervention.com/1206/for-causing-americas-afghan-defeat-indict-president-obama/

 

[britbox]

Agree with most of it. The US foreign policy is bewildering. Not much consideration to longer term consequences.

 

[shawnbm]

I can't say I agree with most of what he says, but he makes some compelling points about Obama and how little there is to do with him because the Democratic party and its marketiers in the mainstream media have gone "all in" with the "historicity" of an African-American president such that he is truly the teflon president. In terms of US foreign policy, I do believe what we do in the Middle East is more of a catalyst for how these medieval Islamic terrorists map out their agenda. Support of Israel, our role in Afghanistan since the 1970s to now, the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam by Bush, the overthrow of Libya under Obama, our close ties with the Saudis and support of Islamic (Sunni) jihadists and rebels in Syria, etc. We have tended to draw closer to Sunni Muslims and their governments (the Saudis, Iraq under Hussein, etc.) rather than Shi'ite nations (Iran, Syria and their minions) and that has had consequences. Perhaps the Iran Hostage crisis of 1979 is still a driving force in terms of how we decide which is best for us and our allies in the Middle East. All I know is that it is a nasty can of worms and Iraq sits right in the middle of the conflict of this century--the Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism and mutual hatred of each other. That conflict will spill over into all else. Obama is now talking about not discounting cooperating with Iran to get things under control in Iraq. We have come full circle once again.

 

[calitennis127]

I can't say I agree with most of what he says

What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[shawnbm]

Well, there is a lot of hyperbole and polemic in what he writes. The idea of throwing around treason as an actual position to take is short-sighted and detrimental to our nation's interests. Doing that--with all that is going on in the world right now--would create an unnecessary sideshow that would weaken our perceived ability to assist in defusing world affairs for the next two years. Furthermore, no matter how compelling some believe the evidence is (and I am a sharp critic of the fiasco of Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talk shows after both Benghazi and the Bergdhal swap), this president is not going to be impeached or thrown in prison for the decisions he has made or failed to make. I did not vote for him and take issue with many of his decisions, but the article went off too far on categorizing certain decisions as containing an unproven criminal or treasonous intent. Warped liberal nazis used to see similar things about Bush and Cheney, which I likewise thought was farcical. I do believe that Islamic militants use our Beyonce/Britney world of soundbites, entertainment and promiscuity as fuel to further enrage an already enraged (and largely uneducated) Islamic world, but the reality is (as I said earlier) the author is correct about that not being the main reason for Islamic jihad being spouted seemingly everywhere. Rather, it is what we have done or not done, and the company we keep, that most enrages these terrorists.

 

[calitennis127]

Well, there is a lot of hyperbole and polemic in what he writes. The idea of throwing around treason as an actual position to take is short-sighted and detrimental to our nation's interests. Doing that--with all that is going on in the world right now--would create an unnecessary sideshow that would weaken our perceived ability to assist in defusing world affairs for the next two years.

This would hardly be a bad thing because our leaders would be more preoccupied with Washington infighting rather than ruining the rest of the world. The United States has made a complete mess of the Middle East in the last 15 years and the world is going to pay for it dearly in the next 50 years.

If impeaching Obama would mean that both the Democrats and Republicans will forget about intervening in the Middle East, then I say impeach Obama. Obviously, I understand that this is impossible given how corrupted and foolish the Washington duopoly is (not to mention the American media), but it is worth stating that anything which re-directs the focus of Washington from even touching the Middle East is a good thing.

 

[britbox]

Nobody is going to impeach an American president. It'll never be allowed to happen.

 

[britbox]

Also Cali, do you seriously believe the president is scratching his chin every night mulling over doing the "right thing" in world affairs? Pretty much every leader in the western world is hamstrung on foreign policy by the needs and aspirations of big business. They make the decision on behalf of big business and then try and sell it the people on a different premise. You think "Big Oil" funded George Bush because they thought he was a nice decent chap? or that he would further their global interests...

 

[calitennis127]

Nobody is going to impeach an American president. It'll never be allowed to happen.

Oh of course. But that doesn't change the fact that there have been legitimate grounds for the impeachment of both Bush and Obama.

 

[calitennis127]

Also Cali, do you seriously believe the president is scratching his chin every night mulling over doing the "right thing" in world affairs?

No. But I think ideology and worldview play a significant role without by any means being the sole factors.

Pretty much every leader in the western world is hamstrung on foreign policy by the needs and aspirations of big business. They make the decision on behalf of big business and then try and sell it the people on a different premise. You think "Big Oil" funded George Bush because they thought he was a nice decent chap? or that he would further their global interests...

You are absolutely right about this, but I would throw in some caveats. First, though, I want to express full agreement with you. The U.S.-Saudi "friendship" can only be understood through the means you speak of. The Saudis are the main bankrollers and facilitators of the world's worst strains of jihadism, particularly in Europe and North America. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis or Iranians or even Afghans. Pretty much all of the 7/7 bombers in London were of Pakistani descent, and who funded the creation of the modern state of Pakistan as well as the radicalism prevalent in Pakistani religious education? The Saudis.

U.S. intelligence analysts know this full well, as the evidence is immense. But, as you point out, money talks more than anything much of the time, and the U.S. ruling class stays mute about Saudi malfeasance because many of its members are bought off by the Saudi kleptocrats and their lobbyists in Washington. As Scheuer has pointed out, if you want to understand American foreign policy in the Middle East, you need to understand that pretty much all Democrats and Republicans in D.C. are bought off, ironically, by the Israelis and Saudis. The U.S. acts as a proxy to those two sides with much of what we do in the Middle East, particularly in opposing Iran.

Having said all of that, I don't think the big business interests explain everything. For instance, Bush and the neoconservative intelligentsia in Washington seemed to truly believe in global democratic revolution. Bush spoke about it emphatically and glowingly in numerous speeches he gave, especially during his second term. He sounded like a pure Jacobin. Of course, the words were not his, but he had been converted to the neoconservative religion by the "brain" trust behind him. So I do think ideology and worldview play a role; otherwise, the United States would not be involved in such abject silliness as facilitating elections in the Middle East so that radical group after radical group can be elevated to power. How does Halliburton, for example, benefit from Nouri Al-Maliki being in charge of the Iraqi government thanks to U.S.-sponsored elections? Very little. The likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bill Kristol truly did believe in a program for transforming the governments of the Middle East, as silly and misguided as that vision may be.

 

[britbox]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Halliburton get around $40 billion dollars of contract work in Iraq?

From the outside looking in -things appear a whole lot different whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power.

 

[calitennis127]

Britbox, if McCain was in power then the U.S. would have assuredly invaded Iran and Syria by now.

 

[britbox]

Britbox, if McCain was in power then the U.S. would have assuredly invaded Iran and Syria by now.

Ha, ha - ok I'll concede that point

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, I concur about McCain. As for motivating factors for involvement in Iraq or elsewhere, reverting to the knee-jerk reaction that it's all about big business or big oil is too simplistic for my taste. There are legitimate humanitarian concerns, as well the need to honor promises made in treaties and to prevent avoidable instability in a region that could have ripple effects throughout the world and one's own nation. Other nations rely on more prosperous and militarized countries to do the heavy loading, but they are in the horn voicing their position and using what leverage they can to get those that can act in some form to, well, act in a given international crisis.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Britbox, if McCain was in power then the U.S. would have assuredly invaded Iran and Syria by now.

Cali, this is so not true...McCain would have nuked them already so there would be no need for an invasion, at least until the dust settled...

 

[calitennis127]

Britbox, if McCain was in power then the U.S. would have assuredly invaded Iran and Syria by now.

Cali, this is so not true...McCain would have nuked them already so there would be no need for an invasion, at least until the dust settled...

No Murat, the nukes would have been saved for Russia, since they are led by the greatest Hitler since Hitler. Syria and Iran would just be occupied by a total of around 400,000 troops each, with a timetable to leave by 2060, on the ambitious side. :laydownlaughing

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Britbox, if McCain was in power then the U.S. would have assuredly invaded Iran and Syria by now.

Cali, this is so not true...McCain would have nuked them already so there would be no need for an invasion, at least until the dust settled...

No Murat, the nukes would have been saved for Russia, since they are led by the greatest Hitler since Hitler. Syria and Iran would just be occupied by a total of around 400,000 troops each, with a timetable to leave by 2060, on the ambitious side. :laydownlaughing

Not even a tiny little 20 kiloton each?:snigger

 

[britbox]

Yes, I concur about McCain. As for motivating factors for involvement in Iraq or elsewhere, reverting to the knee-jerk reaction that it's all about big business or big oil is too simplistic for my taste. There are legitimate humanitarian concerns, as well the need to honor promises made in treaties and to prevent avoidable instability in a region that could have ripple effects throughout the world and one's own nation. Other nations rely on more prosperous and militarized countries to do the heavy loading, but they are in the horn voicing their position and using what leverage they can to get those that can act in some form to, well, act in a given international crisis.

You're one of my favourite posters on here and I respect your opinion, but can you clarify what humanitarian concerns led the United States to invade Iraq? All about oil mate. Countries don't spend billions of dollars to deal with humanitarian issues or they'd send the aid directly without killing half a million people in the process.

 

[britbox]

^Big Business and Energy reserves are only part of the equation by the way. The bigger piece of the jigsaw is protecting the petro-dollar. If the dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency then the United States is shafted.

Iraq was looking to trade outside of the dollar before the invasion.
Libya were trying to implement a new trading currency for Africa.
Russia are implementing a basket of currencies for energy trades rather than using the dollar.

There is a common thread.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I was recently reading a book about Blackwater, the private security company (Now known as Academi) and it was a big eye opener as to how many people made amazing sums of money in the Iraq war. At the peak of the war, there were more private security people on the ground than there were soldiers of the US army. Crazy stuff, and Blackwater was not the only security company either, they were just the biggest with the most contracts. Their employees made so much more than a regular soldier that a lot of soldiers just quit and joined Blackwater. Erik Prince is a rich man.

As to Cali's original post, I agree with most of it and I agree with Brit that the US foreign policy is extremely shortsighted. For US, everyone has a use and a shelf life. They help the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan against Russia, but once they serve their purpose, they are on their own. They use Saddam against Iran and he is a strong ally until he isn't. They support democracy and Arab spring and all that, until the people elect someone democratically that US does not like and actually approves of a military coup, something any democratic country should be against. Democracy is only the right to chose, nothing more, nothing less. If someone you don't like gets elected, that is the price of having free elections. You cannot be FOR democracy and SUPPORT a military coup.

Of course right now, US would probably prefer Saddam , a secular leader who kept sunnis , shias , kurds, basically everyone in check , albeit with an iron fist, to the upcoming mess in Iraq because of Maliki's horrible job and the rise of ISIS .

As to Scheuer's position about the role of religion and all that, I mostly agree with him. You will not find a lot of people who will leave their families behind and blow themselves up just because they hate Iowa Caucuses. And most muslims will tell you that all those hadiths and verses regarding holy wars and infidels and such are about ONE WAR, the one against Quraysh tribe. Take Chapter 47, verse 4, for example. It says. “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite their necks until you have overcome them. Then make [them] prisoners and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom themselves until the war terminates.” The key phrase is "until the war terminates." The one war, against the Quraysh. It was around that time the Quran was being written. In fact if you have read Quran, you will see the vast majority of the book is about the war and the struggle against Quraysh tribe. The fanatics will always try to broaden the book's scope but moderates know better.

But as is always the case with anything religious, it is open to interpretation and some will use something written by men, about a specific time in history, for their sick beliefs. Especially in Islam it is easier because there is not one authority , say like a Catholic Church, to tell the followers what is what.

Bush said Iraq had nukes and were responsible for 9/11. Both claims are ridiculous . The first one is actually the opposite of what US foreign policy stands for. US will NEVER attack anyone with nukes. She cannot risk losing New York or California. So for US to attack someone, it has to have little to no resistance and have absolutely no nukes. If having nukes was a reason to attack someone, there is North Korea right there, go ahead and attack them. Not going to happen.

The second part, Saddam being partly responsible for 9/11, it was just an easy sell to the mostly ignorant American public who would never understand the hatred Saddam had for Osama Bin Laden and vice versa.

In a nutshell, like Cali and Brit say, the shortsightedness of the US foreign policy is not helping the nations future , security wise and economically at all.