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 February 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM in Current Affairs
by Brandon Friedman
(Posted first at Vet Voice and reposted here with permission.)
When a mortar landed just outside Tikrit on Thursday, the round killed one American soldier and wounded another. We still don’t know their names. Yet despite all the cheering we’ve heard about the success of the surge recently, this death made January the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq since September. Let that sink in.
When 39 Americans are killed in January at the highest rate since September (which marked the end of the single bloodiest period to date in Iraq) we cannot say things are improving. Call it a spike, call it a bump, call it whatever you want: Just don’t call it success. The bottom line is that despite what the chickenhawk pundits and politicians are saying about the surge, American troop deaths are up 70 percent from December to January.
To further highlight the fact that the success of the surge is largely a myth, two explosions rocked Baghdad today, killing over 70 people in the deadliest bombing in the capital since last summer. From the AP:
Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally handicapped women detonated in a coordinated attack on pet bazaars Friday, police and Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital this spring.
Unfortunately, this violence is occurring beneath the shadow of Moqtada al Sadr–as Iraq awaits his decision on whether or not to declare an end to his ceasefire with American troops and Sunni militias. And despite what American commanders are saying publicly, influential members of the Mahdi Army are urging Sadr to end the ceasefire. Should that happen, violence would literally explode across central Iraq.
Therefore, given this significant rise in violence, coupled with the perpetual uncertainty that hangs over Iraq, I’ve come up with a list of people, along with some key statements they’ve made in the last month–the deadliest month for American troops since last summer. It’s called:
The List of People Who Are in the Process of Making Premature, Ignorant Statements about the Success of the Surge
Bill O’Reilly, January 2, 2008:
“Unresolved problem” segment tonight, by all accounts, the security situation in Iraq has improved drastically in just a few months. The surge by American troops has worked.”
When Bill says, “by all accounts,” he really means by all accounts that don’t figure in the upcoming American casualty rate, major terrorist attacks on the horizon, and those that wrongly predict the future.
Frederick W. Kagan, Jack Keane, and Michael O’Hanlon, January 18, 2008:
The full surge has been in place and operating for just over six months, and already violence has fallen dramatically across the country. The achievement in such a short time of significant legislation that requires all sides to accept risk and compromise with people they had been fighting only a few months ago is remarkable.
Well, Kagan’s been ahead of himself for years now, but that’s understandable when a Napoleonic historian tries to tackle modern Middle Eastern problems. And O’Hanlon jumps the gun because he thinks he’s an expert after spending a few days on the ground in Iraq. That often happens to highly educated, but inexperienced people when they try to untangle guerrilla war in Arab countries. As for Keane, well. . .I would’ve expected more from him. Oh well.
Kimberly Kagan, January 26, 2008:
The Iraq debate in 2007 focused on whether the new strategy and troop increase could stem violence in Iraq. It did.
It did? That’s probably news to the men and women serving in Diyalah. It’s probably also news to the Iraqi Army units attempting to quell the violence in Mosul this week. Jeez. This is another chickenhawk Kagan (wife of Frederick) who knows absolutely nothing about the fighting in Iraq, and yet still tries to offer advice to the commanders on the ground.
Max Boot, January 27, 2008:
This is a position so utterly disconnected from the on-the-ground reality I discovered in Iraq during a recent 11-day visit that it boggles the mind. The ability of our forces to rout Al Qaeda during the past year was due precisely to abandoning the Special Forces-centric approach we had utilized in the past.
Routing al Qaeda during the past year? Hey buddy, last year was the deadliest of the war for Americans. And the American death rate was higher in January than in any month since September. We can do without the chickenhawkish self-congratulation, desk jockey.
Fareed Zakaria, January 28, 2008:
The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to “ending the war” and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
I love this one from Zakaria: “The war has largely ended.” That doesn’t even merit a response. The troops in theater hate guys like this.
George W. Bush, January 28, 2008:
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. (Applause.) When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down.
Right. Until now. This is nothing we haven’t heard dozens of times in the past. We’re about to turn that corner. Last throes. Unimaginable success. Same stuff.
David Ignatius, January 29, 2008:
Progress here is undeniable, both in terms of security on the ground and in the political bargaining among Iraq’s parties and ethnic groups. You see this on the streets, in the faces of people you meet in shops and teahouses.
Do you see it in the torn bodies and bloodied sandals that littered Baghdad’s streets this morning, David?
::
And finally, though he hasn’t said it in the past month (as far as I know), I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring John McCain into this for his series of remarks:
John McCain, November 2007:
“We can win in Iraq, and we are winning in Iraq,” he told voters crammed into Hudson’s Smokehouse on this rainy Carolina Monday. “The surge is working and Baghdad is better off for it.”
Keep in mind that McCain said exactly the same thing exactly four years earlier:
John McCain, November 2003:
We are winning in Iraq, but we sow the seeds of our own failure by contemplating a premature military drawdown and tempering our ambitions to democratize Iraqi politics.
::
The bottom line, as I’ve said before, is that the violence in Iraq is cyclical, and will remain so until we leave. Anyone who tells you otherwise–anyone who tries to sell you a “surge” as the solution to all your problems, for instance–is full of garbage.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
And I heard reports from the Obama “camp” that Hillary jumped up to join the applause line at the State of the Union (SOTU)address this past week .. OUCH! I couldn’t watch the SOTU speech (anger management therapy), but hearing that Hillary applauded the part of the speech where Bush asserted that the “surge” had worked certainly evoked a grimace.I hope that what I had heard was a myth, and I’m glad to see that she did not make any such assertion at the debate last night.
Any of these pundits/experts (except McCain) ever experience the exhilartion of actually being shot at and surviving? The Enlightenment of watching friends and comerades beubg rent suddenly asunder close aboard?
One’s POV depends upon one’s experience.
Most of the bloviating on this war is done by those whose experience in these matters is, to put it most charitably, “thin.”
It puts me in mind of being lectured about sex by a nine year-old boy.
Of course anyone who was only mildly sane was waiting for the new uptick in violence. But when I read this lovely bite, I flashed on an image of Zakaria sitting at a table with a bib tied around his neck with a huge bowl of stewed Newsweeks in front of him, and a whole bunch of us (you know, the sane people who always knew this surge thing was going to blow up), and we’re force-feeding him the pages of the magazine, literally making him eat his words.
And that’s about all I can say at the moment. The brutal absurdity of our whole situation is just too overwhelming.
Aren’t there always lag times between the truth happening, the truth getting noticed by the wide awake, the truth getting reported by the diligent, the truth filtering through to the interested, the truth getting admitted by the recalcitrant, and the truth finally filtering down to the otherwise opinionated?
I would not trust anyone in America to get our troops out except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich,the various components of the neocon/neolib ruling elite being both corrupt and cowardly. Those who will get our troops out slowly but surely are the Iraqi insurgents.
And not one word about what the alleged surge was supposed to accomplish. A space for Iraqi sunni and shi’ite compromise. One hears nothing about the Iraqi Army or milita or government. Do they exist? Are they functioning? No matter how long the Bush/Cheney/McCair/Neocon Clique want us to stay there, it is and will still depend on the Iraqis to determine their own fate. Meanwhile by eliminating a Sunni buffer between Iran and the Saudi Peninsula, we could have destabilized the Middle East for quite a while. Now the decider-in-chief with the Messiah Complex, has moved on to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has pledged a Palestinian State before he leaves office. Does he know that he is out on January 20, 2009?
Al Qaeda itself is now a small element of the overall picture. Operationally so, they still pose great symbolic value to the strategic perception of the role terror plays, in the Muslim crescent and beyond.
High profile terror attacks are down only because legitmate Al Qaeda operations are cyclical in nature.
Low profile terror is everywhere now and we have fanned the fire. This saps focus on the group most likely to damage our allies.
That’s not the only item. The man we should have tried to co-opt, and at one time probably did when he was resistance to Saddam internally, Moqtada Al Sadr, could at any moment light a fuse.
There’s a damned good chance he’s found ways to establish influence beyond the region, via copycat groups, to run parallel attrition efforts. They just await inspiration, and we can’t even act against him at this time for fear of making him a martyr.
Think of one person’s statement becoming a regional trigger for retaliation, with groups like Hamas joining the effort in a way that overloads our capacity to watch over things. Al Qaeda doesn’t even need to say anything, the only time they do now is when Bush is needing a ratings spike, odd that.
Suddenly Israel, Arabia, and Syria see new spikes and any one group’s reaction to the threat could invite retaliation or be considered justifaction for further tresspass in the name of pre-emption.
Al Qaeda recruits its main assets from the ranks of the educated, even the affluent, the kind of people we have made refugees or dissidents, in these ambitious fireworks displays of empire.
So, people seeing the plight of those persons suddenly become hardened to the idea of assimilation, and that resistance drags down the high flying aspirations of playing cowboy diplomacy.
By static, by drag on the winds of perception, we’re weakened and diminished in our ability to fight the opponent. This erosion wears at the effectiveness of any policy and intensifies the odds of collateral damage.