Imperial Hubris

 

Author: Anonymous, Michael Scheuer
Copyright: 2004
Copy: Paperback used for grad school

Gist: The  analyst who was in charge of the CIA unit over Usama bin Laden (UBL) during and prior to 9/11 talks about why things went wrong and why he’s not to blame.  He points fingers at those who he considers to be responsible in the intelligence community for failing the United States on 9/11.  The author also details why UBL is really after the U.S., that we failed in Afghanistan following 9/11, and the steps we should be taking in order to mitigate the reason UBL and Al Qa’ida are targeting the U.S.

My Ideas: First off, the thing that impressed me the most with this book was that the author, Michael Scheuer, was able to maintain a pissed off tone throughout the whole text.  To do that through 274 pages of text is truly a feat.

I want to talk about the three ideas in this book that I mentioned earlier: why UBL is really after the U.S., why Scheuer thinks Afghanistan was a failure after 9/11  (not the success that Bush claimed it was), and what Scheuer thinks should be done to mitigate the threat of future attacks by groups who follow the ideology espoused by UBL.

Right after 9/11, then President Bush stated that we were attacked because of who we are and what we believe.  I believe he was implying that the U.S. was attacked for our beliefs in capitalism, the high percentage of Christians in the U.S., and our support for democracy.  What’s interesting is that UBL has stated 6 specific reasons that he has targeted the U.S. and NONE of them have anything to do with who we are or what we believe.

1. U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
2. U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
3. U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
5. U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
6. U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

I found it amazingly valuable to know that UBL has stated, on multiple occasions, what his real gripe is with the U.S. and that it has a lot to do with what we’re doing as a country – our policy – and nothing to do with Christianity or democracy.  However, Bush had to try and communicate what just happened on 9/11 to a reeling country seeking for answers.  I get it that a President has to communicate complex things to a wide variety of constituents, a large portion of which do not follow international relations or understand how and what our country is doing internationally and so he has to dumb things down for the lowest common denominator.  But that does not mean you have to lie about the reality of things.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he just didn’t understand the issues in their entirety either since we obviously were asleep at the helm and that was the easiest way for him to make sense of the mayhem.  Either way, what our President told us back then was not true based on what UBL himself has stated.  To quote Scheuer, bin Laden’s “hatred and war-making have nothing to do with our society, values, and ideas.  Bin Laden hates us…because of our policies and actions in the Muslim world.”  Got it, so what you’re saying Scheuer is that I can keep on being a Christian, democracy loving, capitalist, liberal-independent, punk rocker, and I should be safe.  Right?  I’m not totally sold on this even though it seems really close to hitting the bulls eye.

Afghanistan.  Did you know that we actually failed in our attempt to kick the crap out of those who nailed us on 9/11?  This is obvious now following Obama’s recent announcement of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over the next year and a half.  But back when Bush was president he did this.

Mission Accomplished

I didn’t get it then either.  What was our definition of success or victory at the time?  What was it that we had accomplished at that time to justify claiming victory?  Did we catch UBL or destroy Al Qa’ida’s ability to launch an attack against our country or national interests?

There are a ton of things that Scheuer lists as being the reasons why we blew it initially in Afghanistan.  One of the sections I loved was his description of the intelligence community putting “pets” into positions of authority who know nothing of the issues they’re in charge of.  In other words, people who don’t know what they’re talking about are directing major assets and personnel in the war.  He points out that the U.S. has an army of analysts who know everything there is to know about Afghanistan and if anyone feels like they are coming up short and has a few bucks, go to Borders to read up on it!  So to say that the U.S. initially lacked the intel support to get the job done in Afghanistan following 9/11 is a flat-out lie, Scheuer suggests.  Scheuer maintains his pissed-off tone when he says, “…the IC (intelligence community) leaks this kind of comment only when senior managers have failed to develop a cadre of substantive experts, when they want to put their ‘pets’ in charge of programs for which they have no substantive expertise, or when they want to prepare the public for failure…we are paying an exorbitant price because we ignored Sun Tzu’s advice not to ‘demand accomplishments of those who have no talent.’”  So, careerism and greed appear to be what Scheuer suggests has lead us into a failed Afghanistan.  It doesn’t have much to do with our military tactics or methods?

Scheuer argues that the U.S. needs to reconsider their policy in the countries where terrorism against our country is bred.  He said, “Americans should examine and debate the bin Laden-named block of policies to determine if the status quo serves U.S. national interests.”  So, his solution is a debate?  I think that’s kind of weak.  Say what you mean Scheuer.  I bet you believe we should get out of the countries that we are occupying with a military force and possibly stop supporting Israel.

I don’t think the answer is a debate.  I think the answer is to take away the primary reason for most major conflicts that exist today – occupation.  Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Brazil, the United States, Hawaii, Kashmir, and a number of others all boil down to one people feeling existentially threatened by an imposing or perceived occupation.  Where does the U.S. find itself doing the same thing?  Do we find ourselves coming across as an unintentional existential threat with our military forces or other presence in a foreign country?  Easier said than done.  I know that our national security in a number of ways is dependent on our military posture and presence.  But, there’s got to be some middle ground.  There has to be some way to maintain our national security while fully respecting the sovereignty and legitimacy of other cultures and nations.