If you don't get MER, you just don't get it!
(202) 362-5266 - 28 June 2004 - MER@MiddleEast.Org
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
The most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news and analysis
on the Middle East always comes from MER. It is indispensable!"
Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain

CIA "Anonymous" far closer to
reality than neocon Paul

Thus now Bremer hastily and rather shamefully
slinks away without much fanfare, a few days
early so they say, even as Iraq continues to
seeth in hatred and a slow-simmer civil war.

Mid-East Realities - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - 28 June 2004:
Paul Bremer looked today
like a man very glad to be getting out alive and heading away from it all as fast as he possibly could. Indeed Bremer was ahead of schedule lest the 'insurgents' target him and others in the few days left before 30 June. It was a date headlined throughout most of the year by none other than the President Commander-in-Chief himself. But in the end the whole thing was but a whimper for those unable to even stage a serious ceremony inside their fortified havens for fear of attacks, beheadings, or worse.
Paul Bremer may be personally on his way back to Washington for the 4th of July celebrations where he will no doubt be applaunded as an 'American hero'. But Bremer's neocon buddies who put him there remain in charge of Iraq; and they are well aware that
the Iraq Bremer leaves is in miserably chaotic condition. Indeed, the actual reality is that Bremer's rule of Iraq was not only a terrible failure, it was disgraceful beyond imagination when it began. Bremer may be now gone but he leaves in place America's top Generals and CIA operatives to keep trying to pick up the pieces and keep Iraq was coming totally unglued.
As for the 'Iraqi faces' the Americans have been wanting to put out front ever since American faces became so unappealingly hated, the renamed U.S. Iraqi Government Council, now known as the "interim Iraqi government", is pretty much the same cast of characters as before including a Prime Minister who was quite a Baath Party operative in his younger days, that is before he became a CIA operative working overtime to bring about the coup that never was.
It was many months ago now that
pro-consul Paul Bremer was abruptly summoned to Washington with little notice by the White House. A few days later he was quickly sent back to Baghdad where he then abruptly announced his own 30 June departure. Things were already unraveling in Iraq then, but things have gotten continually worse ever since. Thus now Bremer hastily and rather shamefully slinks away without much fanfare, a few days early so they say, even as Iraq continues to seeth in hatred and a slow-simmer civil war.
Meanwhile, the timing of this latest insider revolt book in Washington - IMPERIAL HUBRIS
: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror - is certainly right on. Finally, after all these years, someone over at the CIA has actually publicly connected some of the real dots and said in clear terms that Osama Bin Laden is not a crazed madman hating Americans for no reason...but rather that he and his followers are reacting against U.S. and Israeli policies that over many years have provoked them to doing what they are doing. Do you think they've been secretly reading MER all these years and finally have seen the light?
So a little bit of the real story is now out in "Anonymous" book form. True, at first anyway, the 'mainstream' corporate media played it down and missed the punch lines, including this somewhat buried away story on page A13 in the least read Saturday edition of The Washington Post.
Here too, MER first reported about IMPERIAL HUBRIS more than a week ago in fact on 19 June. Finally in the past few days TV programs have caught on and focused on this unusual book coming from such an unusual and credible author at such a particularly critical time. But no...no one so far has asked the CIA author this key question: How much of what is happening now did we and Israel bring on ourselves because of the militant, repressive, bloody, hubristic, duplicitous, torturing, hypocritical and ultimately self-feating policies we have been pursuing for so many years now?
But then we can't really expect the CIA to OK a book that would so clearly point the finger at itself. They're only publicly connecting some of the dots they want others to understand now for reasons of their own and, did you notice, just after the resignation of CIA Director Bush-friend George Tenet. MER and others are going to have to continue connecting the dots much more clearly, much more honestly, and much sooner than those who control both Washington and much of the major media will ever regularly do.

CIA Analyst Assails War on Terrorism
New Book Says U.S. Has Misjudged Muslims' Concerns and Intentions

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 26, 2004; Page A13

A new book by a senior CIA analyst who headed the agency's task force on Osama bin Laden sharply attacks the Bush administration's approach to Islamic terrorists, sternly criticizes the decision to invade Iraq and chides officials for trying to create a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan.

The author, who writes under the name "Anonymous," argues it is not dislike of freedom, democracy and Western culture that led bin Laden to wage war against America, but rather his disdain for U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world, particularly America's relationship with Israel.

Senior U.S. leaders, the book argues, mistakenly urge Americans to believe that the Islamic world is offended by the nation's philosophical emphasis on personal rights and liberties, and "that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do."

"The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and value -- God, Islam, their brethren and Muslim lands -- are being attacked by America," he writes in "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," which was just published by Brassey's.

The book contends that bin Laden has rallied support among Muslims by convincing them that Islam is under attack from the United States and that it is their responsibility to defend their faith: "Once Islam is attacked, each Muslim knows his personal duty is to fight."

The author's solution to the problem and forecast for the future are grim, based partly on his view that training camps have turned out not thousands of terrorists but perhaps "a hundred thousand or more insurgents."

"As long as unchanged U.S. policies motivate Muslims to become insurgents," he writes, the United States will have to "kill many thousands of these fighters in what is a barely started war."

The book's author is a 22-year veteran of the CIA who occupies a senior position in counterterrorism. He did not publish the book under his name because of his role at the agency, and has asked news organizations not to reveal his name for security reasons.

He served as chief of the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999, a time when, he complains, senior leaders "downplayed intelligence" and "ignored repeated warnings" about the dangers approaching from Islamic terrorists.

U.S. intelligence officials are not pleased with the tone and conclusions of the book, and have watched with surprise as sales have risen. Yesterday, it was the 13th-best seller at Amazon.com, up from 325th last week.

The CIA reviewed the book before publication and determined that it did not contain classified information. "That does not mean we are happy with it," a senior intelligence official said yesterday. "We would prefer officers keep their personal views personal, but we are not in position to prevent him from expressing his personal views in writing done on his own time."

The official added that if the agency stopped employees expressing views that appear contrary to administration policy, they would also have to halt those who want to write in support of policy.

The author condemns the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, saying that "preemptive actions" were needed, but against the "imminent threat of bin Laden, al Qaeda and their allies," not Saddam Hussein.

He describes the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, pre-meditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." He compared it to the 1846 U.S. war against Mexico.

Oil, the author contends, is at the core of U.S. interests in Muslim countries, leading the United States to support "the Muslim tyrannies bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy."

The Bush administration's policy on Afghanistan is described as a failure because it hinges on producing a Western-style democracy with religious tolerance and women's rights -- all of which he characterizes as an "anathema to Afghan political and tribal culture and none of which has more than a small, unarmed constituency."

"We are succeeding only in fooling ourselves" in Afghanistan, he argues. The current insurgency by the Taliban "gradually will increase in intensity, lethality and popular support and ultimately force Washington to massively escalate its military presence or evacuate," he writes. Neither the United States nor its Afghan surrogates "have built anything political or economic that will long outlast the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces," he predicted.

In a broader critique, he said, "U.S. 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."

Please forward MER articles to others in their entirety with proper attribution.
We welcome your comments and information in the new MER FORUM.

Phone: (202) 362-5266
Fax: (815) 366-0800
Copyright 2004 Mid-East Realities, All rights reserved

If you don't get MER,
you just don't get it!

MER is free
Click here to subscribe by email