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

[calitennis127]

Murat, I don't think that "shortsighted" is necessarily the right word, not because it is inaccurate but because it isn't the most accurate. I think "misguided" is a better description since our leaders are operating off of false principles that were inculcated in them while they were in school. America's education system is designed to make people (particularly the future "elite" class) dumb and ignorant, and as Bush and Obama each demonstrate, it succeeds marvelously in this regard.

 

[shawnbm]

In follow up to some of the posts here, it seems to me it is a mixed bag. It is very convenient to point the finger at Bush (or more folks like to say Cheney), and absolve Saddam of any complicity whatsoever, or the Saudis, or Qatar or the British. It is a question that will never had a definitive answer this side of heaven. As for someone mentioning my speaking of humanitarian issues playing a part in this war AND in other conflicts, let me clarify.

For those of us who were around and watching things unfold back in the 1980s up through the Gulf War of 1991 and then through the Clinton years, there is a lot of blame to go around. When Iraq and Iran fought for a decade during the Reagan years, the Cold War with the Soviets was still ongoing--the policies of containment, "spheres of influence" and tolerating if not tacitly supporting despots was part of doing global political business. We chose sides in that conflict, and that repercussions in Iraq and Iran, as well as throughout the Middle East. Saddam gassing hundreds of thousands and then blatantly ignoring UN resolutions and international law through its invasion of Kuwait was not something Western modernists could tolerate--it did not fit the plan. Cheney and old Paul Wolfowitz were in the Clinton administration's Dept. of Defense and these guys were of the school that democracy, freedom and all those political principles were ipso facto better and correct--look at how the Soviet Union had crumbled! These same principles were what was felt could save the poor Iraqiis from the brutal Saddam in the 1990s. Remember Desert Fox in the late 1990s? As I recall, one of the things we learned from the Iraqi war fallout is that we had NO HUMINT (human intelligence) after Operation Desert Fox and we were left to look at Hussein in the light of his past thumbing of UN resolution to check for--what was it again?--WWD. With nothing to fall back on with any reliability, coupled with Sunni jihadists masterminding 9/11, Saddam's word was not enough, not when his actions were like they had been during the earlier Bush and Clinton administrations. 9/11 was a pretense of regime change minds to get rid of yet another oppressive system rather than try to control it through funding and supporting rebel groups insufficiently, which were quashed by Saddam. After Desert Storm, he was left too powerful, in charge and we had no HUMINT at all. So, it was a recipe for disaster.

As for Big Oil being the end all of this, I don't know of a study that has determined this. USA are more oil independent now in light of discoveries in the last ten years and we never imported the majority of our petroleum from Iraq before the war anyway. We've had a cozy and beneficial relationship with the more stable Saudis for decades. It seems to me to be too easy an excuse, and what great benefit did we see from the War in Iraq if that was the overarching reason for the war?

No, I think there are political philosophical and humanitarian reasons that evoke former holocausts, the victor philosophical world view in light of liberal democracy proving it is the future for human kind after the Soviet Iron Curtain fell and those newly established nations adopted liberal democratic platforms, coupled with the view this too could save these backward Middle Easterners who have been killing one another in sectarian violence for over a millennium. Of course, I have little doubt that I may have missed the boat completely, but those are my opinions.

 

[britbox]

In follow up to some of the posts here, it seems to me it is a mixed bag. It is very convenient to point the finger at Bush (or more folks like to say Cheney), and absolve Saddam of any complicity whatsoever, or the Saudis, or Qatar or the British. It is a question that will never had a definitive answer this side of heaven. As for someone mentioning my speaking of humanitarian issues playing a part in this war AND in other conflicts, let me clarify.

Agree with the above to a certain extent... there is a bunch of blame to be handed around and it's not just on the Americans. Everyone has vested interests and they pursue them. What I disagree with is that this is in any way related to being "humanitarian". In short, a country has an objective and they need to sell a resolution to their own people. Nobody is going to sell a resolution to their own people based on taking oil fields, protecting the petro-dollar or working on behalf of "big business". That's when the "humanitarian" narrative comes in. It's a sales pitch... and a bullshit one IMO, but it's necessary to get the backing of the people.

For those of us who were around and watching things unfold back in the 1980s up through the Gulf War of 1991 and then through the Clinton years, there is a lot of blame to go around. When Iraq and Iran fought for a decade during the Reagan years, the Cold War with the Soviets was still ongoing--the policies of containment, "spheres of influence" and tolerating if not tacitly supporting despots was part of doing global political business. We chose sides in that conflict, and that repercussions in Iraq and Iran, as well as throughout the Middle East. Saddam gassing hundreds of thousands and then blatantly ignoring UN resolutions and international law through its invasion of Kuwait was not something Western modernists could tolerate--it did not fit the plan. Cheney and old Paul Wolfowitz were in the Clinton administration's Dept. of Defense and these guys were of the school that democracy, freedom and all those political principles were ipso facto better and correct--look at how the Soviet Union had crumbled!

First, regarding gassing - and I'll start with the Iraqi gassing of the Iranians. In the west, nobody gave two hoots about it at the time. Saddam wasn't invaded then because the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the U.S. and the west (including the Brits and French) were still licking their wounds from the Islamic revolution in Iran - where Iran nationalised it's oil fields and assets and kicked the west out.

Saddam gassed "his own people" - about 5,000 of them (mainly Kurds)... sure, but I doubt he regarded them as "his own people" as they were rebelling and from a different tribe. Remember, Iraq's borders were drawn by a Brit cartographer drawing round a square - not on tribal/geographic boundaries.

Basically, all the big western oil companies got kicked out from Iran and coupled with the hostage fiasco, Iran had become an international pariah.

The west (mainly the French) SUPPLIED Iraq with WMDs (chemical and biological weapons) and nobody cared less that he used them. Speaking from a British perspective, the mainstream media was concentrated on showing the mass fanaticism of the Iranian Ayatollah and his supporters.

Saddam wasn't really mentioned by name in the mainstream then (they only get known on a personal level when propaganda kicks in - the ancient rule of demonizing a leader, not the people). Up to that point it was "Iraq did this... Iraq did that...) Later on of course, it was "Saddam did this, Saddam did that..."

Cheney, Wolfowitz and even Blair had clearly made the decision to invade Iraq long before any WMD inspection results came back. This is coming out at the moment. Blair basically lied to the British parliament. There is a fast growing groundswell of support to get Blair into the Hague on war crime charges. (won't happen, by the way)

These same principles were what was felt could save the poor Iraqiis from the brutal Saddam in the 1990s. Remember Desert Fox in the late 1990s? As I recall, one of the things we learned from the Iraqi war fallout is that we had NO HUMINT (human intelligence) after Operation Desert Fox and we were left to look at Hussein in the light of his past thumbing of UN resolution to check for--what was it again?--WWD.

IMO, their was no agenda to save poor Iraqis from Saddam. Western-led Sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of poor Iraqis way beyond what Saddam was capable of. It was about regime change, not helping "poor Iraqis". There have been further hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed during and after the invasion. Those figures don't lend themselves to a mission to save Iraqis.

On the subject of Sunni Jihadists... Iraq was a strong secular state. There were (and still are) Sunnis of course, but Jihadists never had a foothold in the country during Saddam's reign. Even arch-war advocates admit this.

Iraq had NO CONNECTION with 9/11. Nearly all the involved parties were Saudi Arabian. Saudi Arabia and the west have been funding and equipping those same jihadists in Syria. 2 miles later, they are in Iraq. Lessons learned? None. The Taliban were the same Mujahadeen that the Americans equipped to fight Russia. The Jihadists in Iraq are the same Jihadists that the west (and Saudis/Quatar) equipped to fight Syria.

With nothing to fall back on with any reliability, coupled with Sunni jihadists masterminding 9/11, Saddam's word was not enough, not when his actions were like they had been during the earlier Bush and Clinton administrations. 9/11 was a pretense of regime change minds to get rid of yet another oppressive system rather than try to control it through funding and supporting rebel groups insufficiently, which were quashed by Saddam. After Desert Storm, he was left too powerful, in charge and we had no HUMINT at all. So, it was a recipe for disaster.

After Desert Storm, he was left paralysed. We (the west) had Intel and the weapons inspectors confirmed it. Bascially the war was begun on a PROVEN false premise. Blair told the British parliament that Saddam had WMDs and could strike within 45 minutes. It's been proven to be bullshit and the British weapons expert (Dr David Kelly) involved who thought it was bullshit, mysteriously hung himself from a tree, the foreign minister (Robin Cook) who was against it suddenly collapsed and died and the papers were put under lock and key for 70 years (rather than the usual 30).

As for Big Oil being the end all of this, I don't know of a study that has determined this. USA are more oil independent now in light of discoveries in the last ten years and we never imported the majority of our petroleum from Iraq before the war anyway. We've had a cozy and beneficial relationship with the more stable Saudis for decades. It seems to me to be too easy an excuse, and what great benefit did we see from the War in Iraq if that was the overarching reason for the war?

Big Oil is a factor, but far from the only one. Big business is probably a better definition. The biggest of whom are probably the global bankers. There is a trend in many of these wars and

Iraq - Wanted to trade outside the dollar.

Syria - secular state. Looking to trade in a basket of currencies rather than the dollar

Libya - complied with western wishes to a degree and binned their WMD. Gadaffi then made the mistake of proposing a pan-African currency for trade outside the dollar.

Russia - Driving an agenda to trade energy outside the dollar.

When the dollar ceases to become the global currency then the United States is ******.

No, I think there are political philosophical and humanitarian reasons that evoke former holocausts, the victor philosophical world view in light of liberal democracy proving it is the future for human kind after the Soviet Iron Curtain fell and those newly established nations adopted liberal democratic platforms, coupled with the view this too could save these backward Middle Easterners who have been killing one another in sectarian violence for over a millennium. Of course, I have little doubt that I may have missed the boat completely, but those are my opinions.

Disagree to be honest mate - If the U.S. refuses to bail out Detroit, why on earth would they be willing to spend hundred-fold the money to make the lives of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Sudanese, Egyptians better? Big business dictates my friend. Thanks for your post by the way - it was thoughtful,considered and maybe idealist... I just don't buy it.

 

[shawnbm]

I guess I am not quite as cynical as you on this, britbox, but I do respect your thoughts on the topic. There is a lot of truth there, especially about trading outside the dollar. The possibility of that happening, and the impact it would have on the US economy and through it the world economy, however, makes that utterly impracticable IMHO. The economy is too big, too stuffed full of investor money from other nations and their businesses, that I just can't see that happening; so, I question whether that was as big a motivator in what went down a decade ago when things were--business-wise--even better for the US, Europe and global markets.

 

[calitennis127]

Britbox, your analysis of Big Business's influence is very keen and relevant. However, I think you are downplaying the role of ideology and fashionable ideas. Saying that you promote democracy and women's rights in the Arab world is as fashionable nowadays as saying that you want to see Jason Collins get married some time soon. In fact, Hillary Clinton has openly stated that the purpose of our mission in Afghanistan is to liberate Afghan women.

So the U.S. leadership is making this a cultural-religious war when it really doesn't need to be. If we stay out of it and allow the Arab world to run its own affairs, we'll be fine. But we can't do that, for a variety of reasons, including big business's influence (but not limited to it either).

 

[calitennis127]

Cheney, Wolfowitz and even Blair had clearly made the decision to invade Iraq long before any WMD inspection results came back. This is coming out at the moment. Blair basically lied to the British parliament. There is a fast growing groundswell of support to get Blair into the Hague on war crime charges. (won't happen, by the way)

Here's the proof. It goes back to 1998. Take a look at the signatories:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

 

[britbox]

Britbox, your analysis of Big Business's influence is very keen and relevant. However, I think you are downplaying the role of ideology and fashionable ideas. Saying that you promote democracy and women's rights in the Arab world is as fashionable nowadays as saying that you want to see Jason Collins get married some time soon. In fact, Hillary Clinton has openly stated that the purpose of our mission in Afghanistan is to liberate Afghan women.

So the U.S. leadership is making this a cultural-religious war when it really doesn't need to be. If we stay out of it and allow the Arab world to run its own affairs, we'll be fine. But we can't do that, for a variety of reasons, including big business's influence (but not limited to it either).

I'd argue that Hillary Clinton's comments were part of the "sell it to the people" sales spiel I mentioned earlier. There is no way on earth that the United States, The UK and various other western powers would commit billions to the war chest for those reasons. I didn't hear her mention women's rights in her dealings with Saudi Arabia.

In short, big business is the reason behind most wars involving the west and anything else is part of the media propaganda package to sell it to the good folks back home.

 

[shawnbm]

Well, well, recall the Obama administration sending 500 million to aid the rebels against Assad's government a few weeks ago? Well, now some senior administration officials have told some in the press that one would have to be blind to what has happened in the last decade to continue to make a primary strategy regime change in Damascus. Now, there is talk of an alliance between USA, Assad and Russian to combat the self=proclaimed Islamic caliphate. The team Obama's foreign policy acumen is woefully slow and all over. I am not too surprised--these gains by ISIL caught them off guard and now they have to save some face and try to get on board with what is needed to prevent total destabilization in the area.

 

[calitennis127]

Shawn, both the Bush and Obama administrations have had a major hand in ISIS taking control of the areas that it has. The Bush administration started this mess, and then the Obama administration has given the Syrian "rebels" all kinds of money and support that has not only given them means, but confidence and momentum as well.

Thanks to the incompetence of the last two administrations, a true menace has been created with ISIS. And it is not pretty.

 

[shawnbm]

I did not mean to infer the Bush gang is free and clear of responsibility for actions that helped to further ignite sectarian conflict, but we are 7 years into this administration and I only comment on what it is doing--or not doing.

 

[britbox]

A large part of this boils down to the "An enemy of our enemy is our friend" kind of mentality. Short sighted foreign policy coming back to bite you on the arse.

With regard to Assad, I made a comment a long time ago that "sometimes better the devil you know..." is better than the one you don't. The rise of Islamic extremism is a worrying but not unexpected side-effect.

 

[calitennis127]

Looks more and more like this Bergdahl fellow was a deserter, plain and simple. New reports are making that pretty clear.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Looks more and more like this Bergdahl fellow was a deserter, plain and simple. New reports are making that pretty clear.

His fellow soldiers, at least some of them, were saying that all along...:nono