By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on November 18, 2005 at 3:35 AM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C. Johnson
John Murtha’s courageous call for American troops to leave Iraq is the right policy at the right time. The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a bronze star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.
The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.
To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple–either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.
How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optomistic scenario).
In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don’t think so.
Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents. But our kill capture effort is producing a blowback–Iraqis who are incarcerated and the surviving relatives of those killed respond to our effort by joining the insurgents. Instead of reducing the insurgency our efforts are providing a catalyst that recruits new insurgents faster than we can kill them.
There also is no doubt that our efforts are providing a recruiting poster for jihadists. Last year, for example, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in people being killed and wounded was the highest number ever recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968. The Al Qaeda groups have reduced the planning time required for mass casualty attacks. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda carried out such attacks every 18 months. Now, they are able to mount operations in only three or four months. The trend line is going in the wrong direction
I see no political will on the part of the American public to accept a draft and to accept 90,000 casualties during the next four years. The elections in December will not produce a political outcome that will persuade the various insurgents to lay down their weapons and focus their energies on political debate in a legislature and in newspapers.
Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?
We have two key long term strategic interests. First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife. Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists. Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations. The Beatles had it right–we can get by with some help from our friends.
Given these facts, John Murtha is right. We must withdraw, sooner rather than later, from Iraq. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world. John Murtha and Chuck Hagel are patriots who understand this dilemma. We have lit a fuze on the next generation of jihadist terrorism. We must douse the fuze with water, and put it out sooner rather than later.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
“The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a silver star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.”
The entire premise of the initial war resolution was flawed in that it asked America to expect wise use of force from two men who never learned such discipline.
“The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters.”
Very conservative estimate there.
“Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents.”
Killed on suspiscion, so much for due process…
“Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents.”
Hmmmm. We did this and the secular person was named Saddam.
“Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran.”
We’ve done so already. One really thinks when there are Americans on Holy Soil they’d blow up each other’s Mosques instead of attack the Outsiders?
“The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?”
The actual neocon agenda is to wedge all of Muslim faith in this by forcing the Sunni and Shi’ia to fight until it fractures the varying schools of belief entirely.
Think of it of Catholics v. Protestants, redux.
“First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife.”
Well some of us want to promote secular society, not the GOP.
“Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists.”
Have to argue there. The initial idea was to protect our interests there but by bringing these in we lose influence logistically and by proximity. The original war in Iraq was the result of planning against Russia where we’d be welcome as liberators against the totalitarian atheist Communists. We never had to plan for occupation it was assumed we’d be welcomed under the umbrella of Abraham’s bodies of Faith against the Atheist infidels…
Perhaps the red flag rallies indicate they’re wanted there more. Along the lines of perhaps nationalized assets like oil… seems like we didn’t want this at one time.
“Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations.”
John Kerry-like, wonkish statements that will be sure to draw 9-11 comparisons… agreed this should have been the claim from the start but we’ve lost the moral high ground…
“Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world.”
They’re attacking businesses- see also Jordan. The worm’s about to turn on Bush when business realizes the price it must pay.
But we’re training terrori- errr, Iraqi army in Europe where they’re sure to learn ways to blend in there and assimilate before staging ops for or against…
There’s no easy solution. Why not be Libertarians, withdraw and let Iraq develop a market economy of scale that decides the outcome for itself?
What kind of water to douse these fires? How many of Arab allies practice true democracy? Not the Saudis…
The best strategic objective would be to bring Turkey into the EU, repatriate Kurds in a three state solution, and peg assistance by the world community to the assimilation of Sunni rights with the remaining portion. The Kurds of course seems to be a group we’d most likely claim as secular or distinct (aside from Chalabi).
They’re less likely to go after us, more likely to subvert Iran. We want to supply some of them, yes?
Unfortunately the seeds of retribution will grow out to branches.
A confederated republic is the hope. Enough EU work via Turkey to stabilize the Kurds on a fast track in harmony.
If we can one sovereign and secure state from the three wounded demographics, it’s a start.
Then again the entire nation is a Holy Land ready for pilgramge from around the Muslim arc of influence. New generations can rebuild the legacy and recount how Westerners were such a threat to it.
That is a win-win solution?
Oh, what if we draw down to staging points and decide to invade Iran or Syria from there instead?
We need to change who is at the wheel if we are to expect any deployment in the MidEast to be welcome.
John Murtha injured in friendly fire incident
WASHINGTON: Decorated combat veteran John P. Murtha (D-PA) yesterday stunned supporters and opponents alike by evading White House security and planting a verbal landmine underneath President Bush’s chair in the Oval Office. Murtha’s brazen action imme…
In the interests of full disclosure, I have never picked up a weapon of any kind or served under any uniform, but I do have extensive experience in MidEast affairs, both academic and professional including a stint in DC with an unnamed agency.
The point is while Representative Murtha is clearly an expert on military affairs, we are in too deep to simply withdraw when withdrawal itself may precipitate the fissuring of Iraq. I respect his opinion but only wish he spoke up in 2001/2. It was clear to me (and many others, General Shinseki) then that we would be in a situation similiar to that we find ourselves in today.
Here is calculus of risk as I see it now:
“the burden of adding substantially more troops(nominal) versus the probabiltiy of the country’s falling apart if we don’t(extreme) versus the magnitude of the harm to broader US interests if it does splinter(far reaching)”
I am not defending the administration - my concern first and foremost is the viability of the Pax Americana.
Peace
John Murtha may also be concerned that Bush and crew may use the troop in country to attack Syria and Iran. These attacks would be for political gains and not national security just as the attack on Iraq was.
If we remove the troops from the area Bush would have no toy to play with his hollow leadership.
Yes, begin planning the return of the troops and how to rebuild our miltiary. It is about time time to shine a powerful light up this administration’s ass and it is best that we do it while they are not screwing our troops.
Someone picked up this argument and broadcasted it on dailykos recently. I have some experience in thinking along the lines of this argument, but I don’t agree that 400K troops would do the trick.
Can you cite an example of a counter-insurgency campaign successfully won by a western democracy since WWII? I can think of very few, and the losers outnumber the winners by vast margins.
The truth is that all the solutions were bad. They were bad on 9/11, and they are still bad. However, by invading Iraq in response to 9/11, we have fulfilled Bin Laden’s wildest hopes and dreams. Terrorists crave confrontation and they crave punishment, especially collective. You are exactly right in assessing this war’s effect on recruiting, passive and financial support, and training/organization for mideast badguys. The last thing we should have done post 9-11 was start a general war in the middle east. We can’t control that environment anymore than we can control the world.
We did have a failed paradigm in the Middle East and it need radical action to change, but the best thing to do would have to have rapidly ended all military and financial support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab dictatorships that did not agree to radical changes. There’d have been chaos in the mideast, just like now, but we would not have been blamed by the street.
Which leads to the conclusion of my argument: I don’t think 400K troops would beat the insurgency. You might see a downturn in our casualty rate, maybe, but contain is the best you can expect in the current regional climate. However, you would definitely create a polarized and repressed populace government and create a power-drunk, american-backed iraqi government that would go on to create a pro-american dictatorship of the same sort that got us in this situation in the first place.
Bad, bad, bad bad news.
So, I also disagree with your emphasis on secularism. Again, you’re swimming upstream. Ayatollah Sistani is just fine. Some important people in Iraq have learned from Iran and don’t want to be like that. That’s the key to the whole thing- letting people learn from their own mistakes.
State-sponsored religion has failed and will fail in the end. It’s already failed culturally in Iran, though the government may not fall immediately. We should indeed use agressive law-enforcement /CIA methods to take out anyone with an interest in going overseas to kill americans. Other than that, we should just leave the place the hell alone, support whoever the population of Iraq supports.
It’s vastly unlikely they’ll agree on someone without bloodletting, but our presence and use of force does not improve the odds.
This is a great site, but I think the depth and breadth of Bush’s lies have not even begun to be exposed or understood. He is in Iraq for oil, has added that to the list of reasons for which we cannot leave, and I believe he NEVER intended to do anything else BUT gain control of the oil fields.
Why else is Ahmed Chalabi still being feted by all the neocons? He’s promising to deliver the oil.
Ahmed is extoritng COngress during the budget appropriations debate… lots of eople swallowed in DC.
Republicans are all wearing the blue dress, you too mcCain.
There are better odds that it works if we leave than if we stay.
Our presence creates hgostility, no government can claim legitimacy as such.
The closest comparison we have in the modern era to an event where we were feared to this extent was Nicaraugua/Guatemala.
We left, elements of both sides saw through to peace because they were tired of warfare.
Negroponte is the person who accompanied the timeline of Mosque carbombs. He is a false falg subtrefuge profile and the country has erupted more so since that course of action was undertaken.
We feared a union of Shi’ia and Sunni, so Negroponte put the screws to it.
We stropped a united effort against us, now they hate each other and us. The claim that we stay until violence cedes is a red herring, it will always be there with outside presence.
The difference with Bosnia-Kosovo? Well defined goals, boundaries, objectives, and rules of engagement. Competent leadership in the Ranks working closely with diplomatic powerbrokers.
The combination was able to sustain dialog with little in the form of casualties, and minimized collateral damage.
Get Turkey within the EU, start a repatriation process with the Kurds, establish a secure northern border on their behalf to the point we don’t lose influence to the rpesence of Russia/China.
Turkey will get financial leverage(their leader already proved bribe worthy).
Kurds will get theirs. We gain an ally on Iran’s border for the next phase(admit that it’s coming this war created it).
The Sunni and Shi’ia will work theirs out, they have more similarities than difference. ‘Commonality’ as it were, being they have to develop a new national identity.
The Kurds will part of the new paradigm. We still have a base in Turkey and assistance there will facilitate our mideast presence like the neocons/PNAC long argued.
The Turks joining into the EU could let NATO work true leverage into the region and put theregion on a fast track for infrastructure and underwriting capital.
The only other solution would be a confederated republic with two Kurd regions, one Sunni, and three Shi’ite to trhe point the Kurds and Sunni work together to maintain a tie with the Shi’ia and learn to forge working relationships as a whole.
Three state solution worked in Southeast Europe, similar circumstance.
Three states within one as a republic may well work too. Of course it would mean a return of the republican guard in some form but we knew that all along.
Final note, the subcontract work sets up parallel interests who are outside Geneva’s scope and beyond the control of the Intelligence Community, thinking any results there will ever lead to a stable peace and an end to terror is to be ignorant of the motive that led to these events with the gov’t backing of transnationals.
It happened in Iran, it will happen in Iraq.
This time let’s get the American face off it and let things run their course.
The demand will create a supply need for business. Iran never had a stone thrown at IBM , its building perched two blocks away from the embassy. Nobody protested IBM because you can always follow the money and a place giving a fair shake will get the same treatment. Their Asian headquarters was in Tehran during the hostage crisis.
Then again expecting fairness out of neocons in any matter is a red herring. They oppose fair elections, fair taxation, fair transparency, fair discourse, fair Constitutional process.
Why should we expect them to create fair business background to develop stability on the world stage?
Not enough money in it for them. See also Abramoff.
Hi Larry,
Have you seen William Lind’s strategy for withdrawal? Makes a lot of sense - and from a rightwinger, even. Lind, mind you, is one of the world’s greatest experts on counter-insurgency warfare. He literally wrote the book.
I’ve a post up here:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/11/william-s-linds-iraq-exit-strategy.html
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
“Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months.”
Unless things have changed since I was in, I believe that “six months” should read “six weeks.” The idiots out there will take a minor typo and make a mountain out of a molehill.
As Murtha explained and as amplified here, our nation faces a stark choice: Withdraw over the next six months and preserve some semblance of an army. Stay the course and in twelve months there will be no functional U.S. Army. It seems to me to be a simple, stark and clear choice that touches clearly on the safety and security of our nation. However, what troubles me the most is that our collective decision-making process, our political system, seems completely unable to handle it. This bodes poorly for the future.
The curent administration has Field Marshall Haig Syndrome
-C
Clearly, the Bush administration and in particular, the neo-conservatives, have plans for the military beyond just Iraq. Iraq gives them a central base of operations from which to intimidate and potentially attack surrounding regimes in countries such as Iran and Syria. To bring the troops home would completely unravel their grand plans, and I don’t think they’re going to give in so easily.
Rep. Murtha’s points are well-taken. Either implement a strategy to win the conflict in quick fashion or get the hell out. We didn’t do that in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.
But I go back to the neo-con agenda, which isn’t to win quickly and get out. They have no intentions of leaving the area militarily. In fact, a quagmire, per se, suits their aims as well as anything, along with a President and Vice President who bait their own constituents - the American people - with the “Americans don’t run and hide” or “Americans don’t give up” propaganda. Consequently, we’re forced to remain indefinitely.
We have to come to the realization that this is not, in fact, a war. It is mind games. And the neo-cons must control the minds of Americans in order to effect their grand vision for the Middle East… and the world. The attacks of 9/11 happened for a reason. Never underestimate that.
While I wouldn’t charge the neocons with orchestrating 911, it certainly helped their cause. Otherwise I agree with what Drew said. Turn the Middle East into a boiling cauldron as Ledeen called for, that’s the plan. Dems like Murtha are getting in the way of that, so now he’ll be investigated for nepotism.
The sickening attempts by Bush and Chenney to deflect the proper opprobrium due them concerning the dishonest way their administration took the country to war should be seen for what it is - a vicious, desperate attempt to escape responsibility for this terrible war. These two characters would have Americans believe that Bill Clinton, the C.I.A. & democrats in general were responsible for the decision to go to war. Only one man can make the decision to go to war (unless Georgieboy deferred to Uncle Dicky) and that is the President. Their contempt for the American people is such, that in the face of overwhelming evidence that the intelligence concerning pre-war Iraq was at best manipulated, at worst fabricated, they believe a few staged managed hissy fits should quiet any further questioning. Quoting statements from members of past administrations or timorous democrats like Jay Rockefeller won’t make the awful truth go away. The United States was taken to war based on a series of lies propagated by virtually every member of the Bush administration. The lies are too many to list but here are a few examples of their perfidy: Only the Bush administration, the neo-cons and a small circle of Brits promoted the belief that Iraq was an imminent strategic threat that needed to be invaded and occupied in order to avert nuclear, biological or chemical calamity from befalling America. Only the Bush administration forecasted that the Iraqi gambit would be a cakewalk.( Brave young Soldiers are dying on their 3rd tour of duty in a war that Dick Chenney predicted would last only six months) Only the Bush administration claimed the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq could be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. ($200,000,000,000 and counting) The Bush administration willfully transmogrified an ongoing (but contained) strategic concern relating to Iraq into an imminent threat to the United States not for the stated purposes- The eradication of weapons of mass destruction but to fulfill their warped vision of the middle east. Now we are confronted with the dystopian reality that is occupied Iraq and the instigators of this mess blanch and yelp in mock indignation at the notion that honest criticism should come their way.
Now, it is an ugly truth that many democrats lacked the courage to challenge the administration as they rushed headlong into disaster. The tsunami of baseless propaganda, the attendant war fever and the powerful memories of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 made opposition to going to war with Iraq a difficult proposition. Those who did so had their patriotism questioned in the vilest of fashion. Fearing a political backlash and desperately buying into the illusion that the Bush administration would precede responsibly once given the authority to go to war, many democrats ceded their authority as an opposition party. The real tragedy is that the very evidence now cited as proof that the Bush administration employed innuendo, half truths and outright lies to take the country to war was readily available for use in a proper debate for anyone with enough courage to do so. Individuals ( Risking or even abandoning their careers) throughout the Intelligence community did their level best to propose countervailing deductions concerning the raw intelligence at hand that debunked the wild assertion that were being made by the proponents of the war. We are now painfully aware, that they were correct. Nowhere, not on Capital Hill, not in the print media and certainly not by those sniveling idiots in the Cable news business was there a good faith effort to balance the debate concerning pre-war intelligence. The war became a fait accompli.
2 ½ years on, over 2,000 dead, over 15,000 wounded and no end in sight, the Bush administration has the temerity to demand a form of blind obsequiousness from not just the members of their own party but democrats and the totality of the citizenry as well. Stark reality and latent courage on the part of the democrats( and some republicans) hopefully won’t allow this pernicious conceit to stand. Now, as before the war, anyone who rises to voice opposition to the “ Stay the course” mentality is once again having their courage and patriotism questioned. One need only witness the attack on John Mirtha( a decorated marine) by that harridan, Jean Schmidtt(sic?) in the service of Dick( Draft deferment Dickie) Chenney to understand the pathological nature of the administrations orchestrated responses to legitimate criticism. These vile attacks must not deter those who have a clear eyed assessment of what Iraq has become and have the courage to think anew about how to extricate ourselves from this quagmire. America’s credibility in the world and more importantly the lives of the men and women serving in Iraq depend on it.
Same exact goddamn arguments this nation went through with the Vietnam war. Same words, same theories, remember the domino theory. All bullshit, total bullshit. Folks, America is involved in an illegal war against a country that never attacked us. Any argument which results in our armed forces spending a millisecond more in Iraq that absolutely necessary is the argument of a war criminal. Rep. Murtha is right on every point he raised in his speech; the first words of sanity heard on the Hill since the criminal Rumsfeld and Cheney took over.
Immediate withdrawal followed by massive reparations paid directly to the Iraqis is the only honorable course of action. It has the simultaneous benefit of being an effective course of action to attempt to bring peace to Iraq.
Yes, we broke it and we need to fix it. But we cannot fix it by staying in country and continuing to break it.
“…when you have a purple heart and a bronze star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.”
I don’t agree with it, but these tactics seemed pretty effective in the last election.
The current conventional wisdom is that we have to stay some amount of time to be “responsible”.
I believe we ought to leave immediately, because we are not and cannot really have an impact on the underlying conflict.
The proper analogy is Bosnia. There are 3 primary groupings in Iraq jostling for power. We cannot do anything about this, whether we leave tomorrow or stay another 10 years. The groupings and the aspirations of those groupings won’t change.
All we can do is ping-pong between the groups, who will support us to the extent we assist them in obtaining their goals.
Admittedly, if we contemplate an indefinite presence, like South Korea, then over a few generations we may have an effect. The Iraqis themselves will never permit this, and I certainly wouldn’t support it.
Did anyone see the Sunday morning talk shows?
Not very inspiring to say the least.
I think the mainstream media realize that the American people are coming to terms with the enormity of the debacle this government’s MidEast policy is and are doing a CYA action so that they can appear as if they were not the cheerleaders for war that they most definately were.
Blitzer actually held their feet to the fire for a change, although it’s too little too late. I hope the public see’s the mainstream media for what they are - complicit.
Peace
the American people deserve a plan to win. Cheney is accusing others of not having a backbone.It’s already like Vietnam.
There is the story of miners who use the “canary in the coalmine” to determine if there is gas and danger to the miners.
I look at Murtha as the canary in the coalmine for the US military in Iraq.
If something isn’t done soon, there will be an umitigated disaster. It appears that this is the cry that needs to be heard. Bush/Rove and Crumbsfeld are so stubborn that they are unwilling to change in order to save face.
The hallmark of a great or good leader is the willingness to adapt and to be corrected by others if and when needed.
The correcting better happen soon because the bus is heading for the cliff.
Maybe Crumbsfeld can hire ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown as a consultant. He has experience with unmitigated disasters.
-GSD
This is really the best site for political discussion concerning Iraq.
Just a hearty thanks to Larry for your efforts.
You don’t know how important and cleansing work is.
So much has been written above and I agree with the bulk of it, but I have to get a few points off my own chest as well.
First, as the son of a bronze star winner in WWII Pacific theater (Phillipines), what I find “reprehensible” is the attacks on decorated military veterans by those who did not serve at all, never mind actually win an honor for their service. We all know the list - McCain, Kerry, Murtha. Murtha certainly does not need me to say this, he said it himself in his response to Cheney’s comments, but I cannot resist.
What conflicts me, however, as that I cannot support Murtha’s proposal. While I’m studying it and getting more comfortable with it, because he does not call for “immediate” withdrawal, but withdrawal as soon as “practical.” I guess it al depends on how we specifically define “practical.” I do fear what may happen to our interests at home and abroad if we let Iraq spiral further out of control by withdrawing prematurely. I am more supportive of McCain’s or Larry’s thoughts of 300-400k troops to truly take control of the country. If we’re going to occupy it, then let’s occupy it rather than playing “bonk the mole” in the insurgent hot spot of the day. However, the political will to that will never be there (draft, more casualties, more money, etc.) so I’m losing hope that that plan is practical.
What conflicts me even more regarding the statements above is that I never supported the war (unlike certain members of Congress, I don’t have to admit mistakes and espouse “if I only knew then what I now” excuses), I don’t believe it was ever necessary and it detracted from true “war on terror” activities in and around Afghanistan. Now that we’ve created the mess, however, there are real implications to our national security if we don’t exit in a well-planned and organized fashion (that I still believe is less effective to our national security than a 300-400k troop force).
So, I hate the fact that this unnecessary war that I was against forces me to take a position that we actually stay in Iraq longer with more troops, more death, and more debt. It also forces me to trust that these people who have botched every aspect of this war will somehow get it right even with more troops (we’ll be treated as liberators, we’ll pay for this with Iraqi oil, “Mission Accomplished” over two years ago, etc., etc.).
If anyone is still reading this, you can see I’m arguing with myself and I hate this administration for it. We shouldn’t be there, never should have, and I have say we need to stay…maddening. Somebody help me out.
And why is Chalabi, under investigation by the FBI, has his office raided and is accused of giving US secrets to Iran, and a convicted embezzler who would be doing hard time in Jordan if he ever set foot back there, allowed to meet with all of the administration higher ups, paraded out on every national media outlet, and no one says crap? Liberal media? If it were, there would have been shouts from the rooftops about this felon cavorting freely with our government officails and he wouldn’t have free reign on our airwaves.
And last week Bush says we won’t leave until we have “victory.” Maybe I’m playing semantics games, but what’s the difference between “Mission Accomplished” and “victory.” Doesn’t Mission Accomplished at the very least insinuate victory was attained? Again, if we truly had a liberal media, he’d be skewered for making statements like this, and no one calls him on the obvious, blatant fact if we still are seeeking victory, we was dead wrong proclaiming Mission Accomplished. But admit a mistake? Can’t be done, which is why we’re doomed to be in Iraq forever with insufficient troop strength.
Came here via John Robb’s blog, glad to find this place.
>>> Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran.
http://afr.com/articles/2005/11/24/1132703276123.html
Iraqis miss oil fortune: report
Nov 24 ’05 AFP Australian Financial Review
Up to $US194 billion ($263 billion) in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies under long-term contracts, and not to the Iraqi people, a social and environmental group said.
In a report, the group known as Platform said that oil multinationals would be paid between $US74 billion and $US194 billion with rates of return of between 42 per cent and 162 per cent under proposed production-sharing agreements, or PSAs….
As Bill Arnett said:
Louise Richards, chief executive of aid charity War on Want, said: “People have increasingly come to realise that the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder.”
“Iraq’s oil profits, far from being used to alleviate some of the suffering the Iraqi people now face, are well within the sights of the oil multinationals.”
The Carlyle Group?
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html