PDA

View Full Version : CIA agent says we're letting Bin Laden win



hist2004
09-09-2007, 11:10 AM
CIA agent says we're letting Bin Laden win

BY MICHAEL SCHEUER

Sunday, September 9th 2007, 4:00 AM

On the sixth 9/11 anniversary, Americans can see that Osama Bin Laden has taught them a valuable lesson about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the U.S.bipartisan governing elite. In 1989, Bin Laden famously told the mujahedeen that beating the U.S. would be easier than defeating the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan because Americans are soft, impatient, risk averse and afraid to offend their effete European role models by fully using U.S. military power.

Osama was wrong about our military's courage — it is fighting superbly against long odds — but dead right regarding our elected and high-ranking appointed officials, Republicans and Democrats alike.

The moral cowards governing us today have handed Afghanistan to Bin Laden. Instead of sending a half-million troops to that country, sealing its border with Pakistan, annihilating anyone who fought us, and then coming home, President Bush listened to then-CIA director George Tenet's promise that bribery and a few CIA and U.S.Special Forces officers would win the war. Tenet's recipe let about 60,000 Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters go home with their guns and missed Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

And as for those now aspiring to the presidency, I don't hear a single voice — Democrat or Republican — claiming we should have wielded far more force there.

As a result of this cowardice, today we are fighting a more numerous and better trained and armed foe. Meanwhile, Bin Laden and his boys sit unmolested on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, planning more attacks in America because our bipartisan elite long ago delegated America's protection to a beleaguered Third World dictator.

On balance, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are more threatening today than on 9/11. As the July National Intelligence Estimate reported, the core of Al Qaeda is rebuilt, aiding Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, and preparing attacks in the United States. Worse, the proliferation of Al Qaeda-inspired, homegrown groups in the West is accelerating, as we saw last week in Germany and Denmark.

Bin Laden is doing well militarily: He commands a potent organization, and is instigating a new worldwide threat that is nearly impossible to detect, let alone preempt. The lies of U.S. political leaders do not help us face down our foe. They say Bin Laden, et. al are primarily motivated by their hatred of America's freedoms. Not so. The impact of our policy is the Islamists' core motivation and a glue of unity for that ethnically and linguistically diverse crowd.

The second oft-heard lie is that America is safer than on 9/11. But our governing elite has knowingly failed to accomplish its two most vital post-9/11 tasks: controlling U.S. borders and fully securing the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons.

Because of this criminal neglect, no level of American law enforcement has a fighting chance to stop the next attack, unless an obviously deranged guy, wearing a Bin Laden T-shirt and carrying a clearly labeled Soviet nuke, comes through an official entry point.

So on this 9/11, we must accept this sad and infuriating reality: Bin Laden is winning. He has defied us, attacked us, eluded us and inspired new threats we cannot begin to enumerate.

To be victorious in this long war, we must get smarter and more ruthless. That means reducing U.S. intervention in the Muslim world, keeping policies essential to U.S. security and unloading those that undermine it — like energy dependence on the Saudi and other Gulf regimes. This will start to deflect Islamist and Muslim ire onto their main enemy, the Arab world's Islamofascist rulers.

Second, we must ignore international opinion and apply overwhelming military force on Islamists and their abettors whenever necessary to defend America. This will cost Bin Laden much of the popular support generated by some current U.S. policies.

As this support erodes, the Islamists can be destroyed by men and women descended from those who delivered catastrophe to America's German and Japanese enemies.

Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years, and was chief of the Bin Laden unit at the agency's counterterrorist center from 1996 to 1999. He is the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

Source: (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/09/09/2007-09-09_cia_agent_says_were_letting_bin_laden_wi.html)

Freedom-Fries
09-09-2007, 11:26 AM
If these guys are so smart, why don't they tell us where bin Laden is at ?

xwar
09-09-2007, 12:05 PM
If these guys are so smart, why don't they tell us where bin Laden is at ?



Was this a serious post?

hist2004
09-09-2007, 12:30 PM
If these guys are so smart, why don't they tell us where bin Laden is at ?

Knowing where UBL is (roughly) and "getting him" are to different
discussions.

Hist2004

Noble713
09-09-2007, 01:09 PM
The moral cowards governing us today have handed Afghanistan to Bin Laden. Instead of sending a half-million troops to that country,

This guy's understanding of logistics is ...deeply flawed. Did he not notice that Afghanistan is landlocked? I agree with his overall point but I think the specifics of how to accomplish his objectives escape him.

Zoomie
09-09-2007, 02:56 PM
This guy's understanding of logistics is ...deeply flawed. Did he not notice that Afghanistan is landlocked? I agree with his overall point but I think the specifics of how to accomplish his objectives escape him.

Well not only that, but he completely ignores Pakistan and their do-nothing, know-nothing attitude to the Taliban. Because there's simply no way that you're going to be able to completely seal off a mountainous border with them. If we were able to, I'm sure they'd end up going to Iran or somewhere else where they'll be unmolested.

sct1886
09-09-2007, 03:00 PM
Don't worry the next act such as 9/11 will use some nuke away cleaner to get rid of this problem.

deagle
09-10-2007, 01:18 AM
"Osama was wrong about our military's courage — it is fighting superbly against long odds — but dead right regarding our elected and high-ranking appointed officials, Republicans and Democrats alike"

couldn't agree more. we shoulda just went full throttle instead of relying solely on political moves, and gotten the job done, and not 1/2-@$$ed, and now its dragged on for 6 yrs and counting. they should stop playing around, or it'll look more like cannon fodder, due to the ineptness of the higher ups. they're getting things done, just not quick enough.

budgie
09-10-2007, 02:01 AM
Cue the swift-boating...

Dif
09-10-2007, 03:27 AM
CIA agent says we're letting Bin Laden win
...but our governing elite has knowingly failed to accomplish its two most vital post-9/11 tasks: controlling U.S. borders and fully securing the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons.

I would also add one more vital post-9/11 task:
establish control of own nuclear weapons as they seem to be easily placed on the aircraft that should not have those.
And I wonder what made him think that ex-USSR nukes are not secured?

Russian_dude
09-10-2007, 05:28 AM
500,000 US troops in Afghanistan???? A landlocked country????? How would the US have moved AND supplied the troops there???????

The approach in 2001 was spot on. The problem is that there was no follow-up. More troops were needed (maybe 50,000 US plus 20,000 NATO) but they were diverted to Iraq. If a 1/10 of what was spent on Iraq was spent on Afghanistan, it would have been almost up to Marocco/Jordan level of developement.

Chwyatt
09-10-2007, 05:47 AM
...we must get smarter and more ruthless...and apply overwhelming military force on Islamists and their abettors whenever necessary to defend America.

Coalition forces do all they can to avoid civilian casualties whilst taking the fight to the enemy. That is vital to winning hearts and minds. In Afghanistan, support for ISAF is shaky, but still there and vital to ISAF’s success. Is he saying we should be less careful and employ overwhelming force (especially air power)? Civilian casualties would sore and our job would be a lot more difficult. Support for Islamists would rise, not fall.

I don’t like these analogies with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Isn’t there an adage about not fighting the next war like the last war?

And there was more than just a few US special forces back in 2001/2002. There were several other US units (such as Marines) as well as coalition special forces and other units. Russian dude is right, the original strategy was sound until the Bush administration got eager to regime change Iraq.

afreu
09-10-2007, 04:00 PM
If a 1/10 of what was spent on Iraq was spent on Afghanistan, it would have been almost up to Marocco/Jordan level of developement.

Yeah, from the stone age to a developped nation in 6 years. rofl

Russian_dude
09-11-2007, 04:20 AM
They have some basic infrustructure and some educated workforce in the cities.