Disco is Dead, Dick
Posted by
Kevin
Dick Cheney and the neo-cons still think it is 1974:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”
That attitude is one of the reasons our response to 9/11 has been so pathetically off target. Aside from their out0sized belligerence, their fatal flaw is that are apparently constitutionally incapable of understanding the modern world. They really and truly appear to believe that state sponsored terrorism is the primary driving force behind terrorism. Worse, they don’t seem to understand that the modern world has created a situation where small numbers of people can do large amounts of damage with just a little bit of money, some planning, and some luck.
This failure is apparently in the neo-con blood stream. As far as I can tell, the Project for a New American Century treated terrorism as a tertiary concern and thought that most of it would come in the form of state-sponsored groups. Laurie Mylroie wrote and article and a book making the ludicrously unsupported claim that Saddam was behind the first World trade Center bombing. That book was published by the American Enterprise Institute, which is what passes for the intellectual arm of the neo-conservative movement. Paul Wolfowitz was credited in the book for providing “… crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult.”
When th Administration took power, terrorism was a low priority. It wasn’t included in the top twelve priorities of the new Justice Department’s first budget, and the focus of the Bush Administration before 9/11 was on missile defense and China. They acted as if their primary problems were those created by rival nations, not those created by terrorist groups. Even after 9/11, Wolfowitz could not bring himself to believe that Al Qaeda was carrying carrying out their operations without the active help of a state:
Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled … “Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.”
“We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States,” I answered. …
Wolfowitz turned to me. “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1999 attack on New York, without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.” I could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.
Even Bush thought that way:
“Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…”
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. “But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.”
“I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred …”
“Absolutely, we will look … again.” I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. “But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.”
They just don’t understand. They formed their opinions of the way the world worked in the Cold War, when the conflict between the two super-powers dominated the world stage. During that time period, much terrorism was state sponsored and the largest threats to the United States did come from state actors. But the world has changed. Technology has made states unnecessary for terrorists. Technology allows small groups of people to communicate effectively, to raise money easily, and to devise means of killing a lot of people easily. They don’t realize that; worse, they seem incapable of realizing that.
Now they are apparently feeding money to Sunni terrorists and insurgents, many with connection to Al Qaeda, in the hopes of checking who they see to be the real threat in the region: the state of Iran. I would bet almost anything that these people think that once they have made the Saudis happy by weakening or demolishing Iranian power in the Middle East, the Saudis can call off these Sunni terrorist groups. But they cannot. These groups are not the puppets of the Saudis, at least not all of them and certianly not those working with Al Qaeda, are not controlled by anyone other than themselves. Assuming that the Saudis would even want to reign these groups in, there is little reason to think they could in any comprehensive fashion. Perhaps it’s their natural authoritarian nature, perhaps it’s their contempt for the little people, perhaps its their cold war experiences, perhaps it’s the bubbles they have built for themselves, but the neo-cons seem to be simply incapable of realizing that small groups can and are lethal. It is a failure of stunning proportions, made all the worse because it is still driving American policy.
New Yorker link Via Digby.
The views are broad but realistic, the ideas presented here are in my opinion the ones to be most likely true. To give the author total credit is disrespectful to other writers with the same views, however I must tip my hat to the format in which he(or she if the stereotypical male name refers to a female) has presented the material. I must also give praise to the cold war references; there has been much contraversy over the way the president is thinking, and this view point offers many answers to his state of mind. In my finally words, I would like to hear more from the author and perhaps follow up studies, theories, or references.
Trying to keep it short.
~ Saul
Comment 2/26/2007
That all seems reasonable, but there are more immediate errors as well:
Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.
Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…
see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred …
Bush was fixated on Sadam from before 9/11. He entered office planning another war in Iraq, and the post-9/11 planning was all focused on Iraq even as his own people told him there was no link.
It’s not just that they don’t understand what’s going on. They don’t care. They were determined to do what they did irrespective of the facts. They finally did it in defiance of the facts. They’re now slogging through the aftermath in defiance of the results.
Comment 2/26/2007