Monday, April 02, 2007

EB Rewind - Michael Scheurer on Iraq and Afghanistan

Lately, I have been called pessimistic. Deuce and some EB commenters have been accused of undermining the troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Although it may have seemed that BDS is pandemic in the Elephant Bar, Deuce and I, along with Desert Rat and others have had nothing but the best interests of the troops and the country in mind. The posts and comments may have seemed like unrelenting, negative criticism but if you were watching a train wreck would you think less of someone who tried to stop the coming disaster? Is it unpatriotic to point out the mistakes and missteps which have had serious implications for the future? I don't think so and regardless, those criticized are in good company.

This January 15 EB post is worth a revisit.

"...I think America is defeated in Iraq." Michael Scheurer

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has two very interesting interviews. One was done on January 8, 2007 with former CIA analyst and author Michael Scheurer. The other interview from December, 2006 is with Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terrorism at Washington's Georgetown University and the author of "Inside Terrorism,"

Scheurer's interview is an interesting read. In it, he says "...I think America is defeated in Iraq." Not only in Iraq, but also, he thinks in Afghanistan too. He says, this is why he wrote his forthcoming book, "From Pandora's Box: America and Militant Islam After Iraq."

In the short interview, Scheurer says:
# That we have failed to understand the nature of our enemy.
# Our presence in the Islamic world is the greatest motivation for the enemy.
# The only reason Bin-Laden hasn't hit us again even harder is that he hasn't been ready.
# "The United States has never had a better ally than General Musharraf."
# The purpose of rendition was originally to get "bad guys" off the street.
# Our leaders cannot bring themselves to understand and say that this is a religious war.

"...the war we're fighting against Al-Qaedaism is a more serious problem than we have imagined to date. And that it has much more to do with religion than anyone in power is willing to talk about."

Scheuer: The primary goal of Al-Qaeda and the movement it has tried to inspire around the world has been to create Islamic governments in the Islamic world that govern according to their religion. And bin Laden's view on this is that those governments -- the government of Egypt, the government of Saudi Arabia, the government of Jordan, Algeria, right down the line -- only survive because the United States protects them, and Europe protects them. Either with money, diplomatic and political support, or military protection.

And bin Laden's goal has been to simply hurt the United States enough to force us to look at home, to take care of things here, and thereby prevent us from supporting those governments, which he -- and I think the vast majority of Muslims -- regard as oppressive police states.

Once America is removed from that sort of support, Al-Qaeda intends to focus on removing those governments, eliminating Israel, and the third step, further down the road: settling scores with what the Sunni world regards as heretics in the Shi'ite part of the Islamic world. So his vision for the world, and the vision they're pursuing, is a very clear and orderly one, at least from their perspective.

RFE/RL: Tell me about the book you're working on, it's called "From Pandora's Box: America And Militant Islam After Iraq." What does that title mean?

Scheuer: Well, the Bush administration, the media, [and] the Democrats have talked a lot about the unintended consequences of invading Iraq. And the book is basically an effort to say: yes, there have been unintended consequences -- but they weren't unpredictable consequences.

What I'm trying to describe in the book is that we just have a simple failure here to understand our enemy and the world we deal with.

RFE/RL: And the use of the phrase "after Iraq" refers to a time when the United States is no longer in that country?

Scheuer: The book is written because I think we're defeated in Iraq. I think we're simply looking for a way to be graceful about the exit, but it's going to be very clear to our opponents in the Islamic world that they've defeated the second superpower.

They defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; they've defeated us in Iraq; and it looks very likely that they'll defeat us in Afghanistan. And so Iraq, for all intents and purposes, as far as our enemies are concerned, is over.

Both Scheurer and Hoffman state that US presence is an irritant in the Muslim world. Well, duh, but I do agree with Hoffman on a couple of points. One: The first step toward democracy is providing security. And two: It's not enough to "clear"; you must be able to "hold."

RFE/RL: The Taliban has made a strong comeback in Afghanistan. Are we losing the war on terrorism in that country, which is the first place the United States intervened after 9/11?

Hoffman: Well, certainly, there's been an enormous backsliding in Afghanistan. Not only a spike in insurgent activity, but suicide terrorist attacks, which were unheard of in Afghanistan, are now multiplying with a singularly disturbing frequency.

I think Afghanistan is demonstrating, just as Iraq has, that it's not enough to have forces there that do the clearing. They also have to do the holding, which means you have to have sufficient forces that can provide security and stability for the population so they're not preyed upon by the insurgents, so that they feel confidant in the government's ability to discharge the fundamental expectations that citizens throughout the world have of their governments -- that's to protect them and defend them, to provide security so they can get on with their lives, so that they can engage in daily commerce, so that they can socialize.

That I see as one of the biggest threats, and why our adversaries think they will eventually triumph, because they feel that they can eventually wear us down, or that we can't protect every target all the time, or they believe they have the impunity to strike anywhere, at any time.
Two more opinions in a world full of opinions. I don't know anything about Hoffman, but I respect Scheurer's opinions. Not that I agree with everything he says, but by and large I find him to be very reasonable and measured. That's why his opinion of the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan is such a bummer. As I have said before, the coming years will see terror attacks and little hot wars on the frontiers between Islam and its intended victims ala Somalia and Ethiopia. That is until, some fool gets his hands on a nuclear device.

16 comments:

  1. Carrying on with the previous discussion, is it possible Iran wants to be attacked so that it can gather sympathy from the Russians and Chinese as well as Islamadom for justification to get nuclear weapons?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll not hold my breath waiting for an attack.
    Course I'll be more than balanced off by Mat doing his deep breathing excercises wearing the Nitrous Mask.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scheurer and O'neill were regarded as unmatched in their knowledge and understanding of the terrormasters by Dick Clark.

    Few informed people would disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An "attack", entails just what, really?

    The decimation of Iranian air defense and the destruction of Nantz, or attacking a IRG warehouse and sinking a couple of the patrol boats that took the Brits?

    Decimation and destruction sets them back, the other sets them up for another round.

    Remember that "Shock & Awe" wasn't really much of either.
    In Yugoslavia, the results were long in coming, against a itsy bitsy country:
    NATO's bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from aircraft, ships and submarines. The United States was, inevitably, the dominant member of the coalition against Serbia, although all of the NATO members were involved to some degree — even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war. Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions.

    The scale and scope of targeting, in Iran, are much grander than Serbia.

    Over 100,000 air combat missions in the same 10 weeks required instead of just the 38,000 against Serbia.

    Crippling Iran required before to many of the asymetrical retaliatory strikes planned by the Iranians take place. Terror strikes in Iraq, Lebanon, Palistine, Central America, Europe & the US. Whatever they may entail and whereever they may occur.

    Instead the US will, most likely, incrementally escalate, after sinking an Iranian boat or two, if we take any action at all.

    Commence with the tit for tat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2164th: Carrying on with the previous discussion, is it possible Iran wants to be attacked so that it can gather sympathy from the Russians and Chinese as well as Islamadom for justification to get nuclear weapons?

    It's all about Iranian domestic politics. Just as leftist candidates throughout Europe play the anti-America card to get over the top on election day, the mullahs need the US and or Israel to bomb them to firm up support for their morally bankrupt regime. We can write off Great Britain as she sinks into the EUtopian morass. The US and Australia must continue to squeeze Iran ala the North Korea model, but must never allow acts of war by the Iranian regime to cost nothing. Should the Republican Guard try their shennanigans with a US frigate, interdicting and diverting supplies of gasoline bound for Iran would be indicated, with the percentage of seized vessels rising every week the hostage crisis continued.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Iran forces Israeli rethink


    Simon Tisdall
    Monday April 2, 2007
    The Guardian


    Uzi Arad, former director of intelligence at Israel's spy agency, Mossad, has made a lifetime's study of revolutionary Iran. If international sanctions and diplomatic arm-twisting fail to halt its suspect nuclear activities, he is clear what the west must do: bomb Tehran.
    Israel's official policy, like Britain and the US, stresses peaceful pressure to secure Iran's compliance with its nuclear obligations. The so-called military option has been assiduously talked down ever since President George Bush appeared to talk it up in January. In any case, military experts say, air strikes would have limited success.

    Mr Arad has no such inhibitions: "A military strike may be easier than you think. It wouldn't just be aimed at the nuclear sites. It would hit military and security targets, industrial and oil-related targets such as Kharg island [Iran's main oil export terminal in the Gulf], and regime targets ... Iran is much more vulnerable than people realise."
    Like most Israeli politicians and planners, Mr Arad says maximising pressure on Iran by all non-military means is the current priority.

    "Instead of threatening war, my preference would be for building an international coalition to end the [nuclear] crisis," said Israel's veteran vice-premier Shimon Peres. Yet Iran's behaviour following its seizure of the 15 British service personnel showed how difficult that would be. "They will use every trick," Mr Peres said. "They will try and string it out, try to exert maximum pressure. It's blackmail ... But they will pay the price in the end."
    ...
    But perhaps the most startling shift in Israel's outlook is its increased willingness to "internationalise" the search for solutions, whether in Lebanon, where it agreed to an enlarged peacekeeping presence after last summer's war, in Palestine, where it has sought EU and other help in isolating Hamas, and in terms of improving relations with the UN.

    And as both Mr Arad and government ministers see it, facing down a potentially nuclear Iran is a global, not just an Israeli necessity - and will require a joint international effort. "We draw a parallel with the Third Reich," said a senior leader of the Likud opposition party. "They [Iran's leaders] are mad ... For Ahmadinejad, the cold war idea of mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an incentive."

    ReplyDelete
  7. B-52, Where Are You?

    Why the Pentagon doesn't want you to know its bombers finally work.
    By Gregg Easterbrook
    Posted Monday, April 2, 2007, at 7:05 AM ET

    Two decades ago in the Washington Monthly, I quipped that U.S. bombers were becoming so few that eventually they would be named after states, like battleships. So, guess what: The Air Force now names its B-2 stealth bombers after states. There's a B-2 christened the Spirit of Georgia, another the Spirit of Alaska, and so on—with no danger of running out of names, because B-2 production stopped at 21. Today, the United States has just 183 bombers in its entire arsenal, versus more than 75,000 at the peak of World War II. Currently, the Pentagon plans to spend a gasp-inducing $320 billion on thousands of new fighter jets, but has nothing budgeted for new bombers for at least another decade; the Air Force actually says the Kennedy-era B-52 bomber will remain in service until 2037—when any still capable of getting airborne will be 80 years old.

    The withering away of the bomber corps reflects planning assumptions a quarter-century old. Then, the thinking was that precision-guided munitions delivered from low altitude by jet fighters would take over nearly all conventional bombing roles. As recently as a few months before 9/11, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered the mothballing of 30 B-1 bombers ...
    ...
    unexpected technical breakthroughs resulted in extremely accurate munitions that can be dropped from high altitude by bombers, at less cost and risk than using low-flying fighters. The result has been that during the Afghanistan and second Iraq campaigns, most of the air punch has been delivered by a handful of the remaining bombers. Some 80 percent of the bombs dropped during the U.S. seizure of Afghanistan fell from bombers; the share dropped on Iraq since March 2003 is nearly as high. Though bombers have in this decade turned out to be far more important to U.S. military action than Pentagon strategists expected, the government still plans to invest fantastic amounts of money in fighter planes that would be used mainly to drop bombs.
    ...
    But after $320 billion is spent building hundreds of F-22s and thousands of F-35s, how would they be used? Only a few would be employed in the interceptor role of shooting down enemy fighters, since no adversary nation is even attempting to manufacture fighters or air-to-air missiles capable of contesting those the United States already has. Plans call for the majority of the new F-22s and F-35s to be employed mainly for dropping smart bombs from low altitude. That is, they will do at fantastic expense what new satellite-guided devices from bombers can do relatively cheaply. This is why the Pentagon has not been crowing much about the success of its bombers above Afghanistan and Iraq: If that were understood, the case for spending $320 billion on smart-bombing fighters would fade.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the previous thread, Ms T said...
    "Should the Republican Guard try their shennanigans with a US frigate, interdicting and diverting supplies of gasoline bound for Iran would be indicated, with the percentage of seized vessels rising every week the hostage crisis continued."
    ---
    No Blood there.
    ...unless the Iranians continue to display their stupid ways, in which case EVERY Iranian Ship in the vicenity should be sunk, ala "Preying Mantis"
    (and the praying Muzzies)
    ala akbar, save my stinking ass.

    ReplyDelete
  9. trish,

    re: Gotta wonder, though: What method of coercion was used on the sailors to make them sign prepared statements?

    None. They are now trained in docility. There will be no escape attempts either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And what happens when a "mob" decides to take over the British embassy in Tehran, a la USA's in '79.

    Another 444 days buys a good deal of time for nuclear experimentation,etc. and inportation and training on new Soviet air defenses.

    I don't think Israel will wait for that outcome. The Brits would be smart to move out now. If 15 low level hostages can paralize the process an Embassy takeover would be even better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Allen: None. They are now trained in docility. There will be no escape attempts either.

    The Limeys certainly didn't have much fight in them while they were being captured, which probably shocked the hell out of the Persians, fresh from the cinema where they just saw "300". Now I worry for the safety of British sailors in bars from Diego Garcia to Singapore. They might run into some drunk Aussies or Yanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. teresita,

    As a fellow who has thrown back many a pint with both Aussies and Blokes, I wouldn't take that whole wussy thing too far in a bar.

    Anyone wanting to tangle with a Royal Marine should finish his drink first.

    Like our guys, they are stuck for the moment with the leadership they've got. You can bet the temptation to crack neck is galling them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Scheuer said recently he could think of nothing better than to get out of the way and have our enemies fight one another, whether in Iraq or elsewhere. (An al Qaeda v. al Saud death match would be especially nice on pay-per-view.) He's not alone in that."

    Be nice if the global economy wasn't built on oil.

    As for Scheuer - as I said at the time, I like both his books because he's an original thinker. His biggest, imo, is that he's fallen for 'Lebenstraum', owing to his admiration of Bin Laden, which dovetails with his personal dislike of American international interventionism. Al Qaeda and the Islamic world's gripes with the US, however, are too deep-seated to be appeased at this point. America's the new Jews, to their Protocols.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As to Hoffman, he's an expert on ethno-nationalism terrorism who's been playing catchup over the past few years. I've seen him speak and while he was obviously intelligent (RAND doesn't hire idiots), he didn't impress me as much as the other people on the panel, Pollack and Hammes. Everyone else around here thinks he's superb, however, so I may be wrong.

    ReplyDelete