|
Edited on Thu Oct-21-04 08:42 AM by GoreN4
...by Usama bin Laden as his core demands according to the ‘anonymous’ CIA author/counter-terrorism analyst and author of 'Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.' This book provides an exceptionally candid appraisal of bin Laden’s grievances and that of much of the Muslim world, which according to the author have been specifically and consistently repeated as the core issues behind what bin Laden’s views as a “defensive jihad” against the United States. FYI: Anonymous (later identified as Michael Scheuer, Chief of the Bin Laden Unit, Counterterrorist Center, 1997-1999), offered the following observation: “Bin Laden’s center of gravity…lies in the list of current U.S. policies toward the Muslim world because that status quo enrages Muslims around the globe – no matter their view of al Qaeda’s martial actions – and gives bin Laden’s efforts to instigate a worldwide anti-U.S. defensive jihad virtually unlimited room for growth.”…”Until those policies change, the United States has no option but increasingly fierce military response to the forces marshaled by bin Laden, an option that will prolong America’s survival but at as yet undreamed of costs on blood, money and civil liberties.” “…An honest debate will, however, allow Americans to know what they are signing up for: A policy status quo that will guarantee broadening conflict with escalating human and economic expense, or new policies that have potential, over time, for a less confrontational and bloody relationship with Islam. Whatever the choice, it must be made by all Americans until all options are presented and debated, and not solely by their elites with the guidance, lobbying, money, and machinations of oil companies, weapons makers, evangelical preachers, and Israel and its acolytes.” According to this 17-year veteran CIA analyst, Al Qaeda sponsored terrorists attacks will not end unless the U.S. either pursues either a total genocidal war against numerous Muslim countries in the region, killing millions of people in the process, or U.S. policy makers change our foreign polices and align them with U.S. principles, not the interests of the industrial-military-petroleum conglomerate. According to this CIA expert, Bin Laden does not “hate our freedoms” nor does he hate our democratic institutions. Despite ongoing U.S. media censorship, bin Laden has repeatedly stated his revulsion to the following six specific areas of current U.S. foreign policy: (page 241)
1) U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall
2) U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula
3) U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
4) U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants
5) U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low
6) U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governmentsIn the past few years, too many Americans have wrongly been led to believe the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam, an idea promoted by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, whose thesis regarding a “clash of civilizations” has become common within certain uninformed segments of the U.S. population. However, despite the rhetoric heard in some far-right Christian ideology about a ‘religious war,’ according to this CIA expert on bin Laden, Bin Laden has explicitly stated that he does not desire to expand the Islamic religion beyond existing Muslim countries, and he will follow us in de-escalation just as quickly as he is following use in escalation. Please note this statement: (page 17) “…Therefore, I am telling you, and God is my witness, whether America escalates or de-escalates the conflict, we will reply to it in kind, God willing. God is my witness, the youth of Islam are preparing things that will fill your hearts with fear. They will target key sectors of your economy until you stop your injustice and aggression or until the more short-lived of us die.”
- Statement by Usama bin Laden, October 6, 2002
Michael Scheuer, the veteran CIA Usama bin Laden hunter, and "Anonymous" author of 'Imperial Hubris' makes the important point in his book that al Qaeda’s intentions follow Clausewitz’s principle of attacking one’s foe at their “center of gravity.” Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi, an al Qaeda operative, wrote an essay in late 2002 that clearly stated al Qaeda’s goal is to “direct all available force against the {US’s} center of gravity during the great offensive.” Moreover, this essay stated that while American public opinion was the center of gravity identified and attacked by Hanoi during the Vietnam War, today al Qaeda has identified America’s “center of gravity” as its economy.
“A conviction has formed among the mujahedin that American public opinion is not the center of gravity in America. The Zionist lobbies, and with them the security agencies, have long been able to bridle all the media that control the formation of public opinion in America. This time it is clearly apparent that the American economy is the American center of gravity. This is what Shaykh Usama Bin Laden has said quite explicitly. Supporting this penetrating strategic view is that the Disunited States of America are a mixture of nationalities, ethnic groups, and races united only by the “American Dream,” or to put it more correctly, worship of the dollar, which they openly call “the Almighty Dollar.”…Furthermore, the entire American war effort is based on pumping enormous wealth at all times, money being, as has been said, the sinew (strength) of war.” (page 101)
- Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi, essay “A Lesson in War,” posted on Al-Ansar (Al Queda’s Internet website), December 19, 2002
The most authoritative refutation of Samuel Huntington’s thesis has been provided by a young British political scientist and human rights advocate, Nafeez Ahmed. In his latest book, Behind the War on Terror, Ahmed carefully deconstructs Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory with a methodical analysis of western policies in the Persian Gulf region throughout the 20th century (mainly British and American interventions). Nafeez’s thesis offers a more analytical and objective approach to the subject, and is summarized in the following exert from his book:
“Western policy in the Middle East, specifically the Persian Gulf, is unambiguous evidence of a system of surrogate imperialism that has been quite deliberately developed by the Western powers in order to protect and secure their regional interests which have remained fundamentally the same since the colonial era. The significant difference between the new stage of surrogate imperialism and the colonial system from which the former has developed is the more sophisticated and subtle structure of nation-states co-opted, manipulated and to a high degree effectively controlled by Anglo-American power.”
“…When that system of control shows signs of collapsing – for instance, by the rise of indigenous nationalism – the necessity of Western military intervention is invoked to protect that system, and brutal military force is utilized to impose Western will. The hysterical Anglo-American drive for war in the Persian Gulf since 11 September 2001 is a late example of this, manifesting at once the imminent collapse of this system of control due to a variety of factors (especially depletion of worlds energy sources and regional political developments) and the consequent urgent desire on the part of the Anglo-American elite to immediately intervene to protect, consolidate and expand that system. Consolidation and expansion is hoped to be achieved by the military invasion and permanent occupation of the Persian Gulf, converting the Anglo-American alliance – under US leadership – into a direct regional power with the capacity to restructure the entire Middle East.”
Here's my 2cts on the subject (this is from my upcoming book:'Petrodollar Warfare'):
The author is inclined to agree with Nafeez’s analysis of the Central Asia/Middle East regions suffering from surrogate imperialism during the post-colonial period. Consequently, while appreciative of the courageous CIA analyst who wrote 'Imperial Hubris,' the author suspects the end of the current conflict can not be accomplished via some sort of massive “total war” against multiple pre-dominantly Muslim states. The obvious reason is the industrialized nations, or OPEC members, would consider the U.S. government as a “rogue” nation, and “pull the monetary” plug on the U.S. dollar in a desperate effort to thwart an all-out genocidal war in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region.
The reason is simple. The global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf, and would likely move in tandem on the international currency exchange markets to thwart any further belligerent, unilateral U.S. warfare in the region in an effort to preserve the current oil production and shipping infrastructure. Recognizing the limitations of U.S.’ military “hard power,” and the potential economic blowback stemming from such policies, the only alternative that could prop-up the U.S. economy while diminishing the terrorist threat is the re-alignment of U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East and Central Asia with true American ideals.
References:
"Anonymous," Imperial Hubris, Why the West if Losing the War on Terror, Brassey’s, Inc.,( 2004) pgs. 17, 101, 241, 263 & 259
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888498/qid=1098364689/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7745517-2480652?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Ahmed, Nafeez M., Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq, New Society Publishers (2003), p. 19
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865715068/qid=1098365203/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-7745517-2480652
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
