The Terrorism Issue That Wasn’t Discussed

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Gareth Porter

In the commentary on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the news and infotainment media have predictably framed the discussion by the question of how successful the CIA and the military have been in destroying al Qaeda. Absent from the torrent of opinion and analysis was any mention of how the U.S. military occupation of Muslim lands and wars that continue to kill Muslim civilians fuel jihadist sentiment that will keep the threat of terrorism high for many years to come.

The failure to have that discussion is not an accident. In December 2007, at a conference in Washington, D.C. on al Qaeda, former State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin offered a laundry list of things the United States could do to reduce the threat from al Qaeda. But he said nothing about the most important thing to be done: pledging to the Islamic world that the United States would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end its warfare against those in Islamic countries resisting U.S. military presence.

During the coffee break, I asked him whether that item shouldn't have been on his list. "You're right," he answered. And then he added, "But we can't do that."

"Why not," I asked.

"Because," he said, "we would have to tell the families of the soldiers who have died in those wars that their loved ones died in vain."

His explanation was obviously bogus. But in agreeing that America's continuing wars actually increase the risk of terrorism against the United States, Benjamin was merely reflecting the conclusions that the intelligence and counter-terrorism communities had already reached.

The National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" issued in April 2006 concluded that the war in Iraq was "breeding deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim World and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." It found that "activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion." And in a prophetic warning, it said "the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance…particularly abroad but also at home."

Given the way intelligence assessments get watered down as they ascend the hierarchy of officials, these were remarkably alarming conclusions about the peril that U.S. occupation of Iraq posed to the United States. And that alarm was shared by at least some counter-terrorism officials as well. Robert Grenier, who had been head of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center in 2005-06, was quoted in the July 25, 2007 Los Angeles Times as saying the war "has convinced many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam and is attacking Muslims, and they have become jihadists as a result of their experience in Iraq."

As the war in Iraq wound down, the U.S. war in Afghanistan -- especially the war being waged by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) -- was generating more hatred for the United States. As JSOC scaled up its "night raids" in Afghanistan, it never got the right person in more than 50 percent of the raids, as even senior commanders in JSOC recently admitted to the Washington Post. That indicated that a very large proportion of those killed and detained were innocent civilians. Not surprisingly, the populations of entire districts and provinces were enraged by those raids.

If there is one place on earth where it is obviously irrational to antagonize the male population on a long-term basis, it is the Pashtun region that straddles Afghanistan and Pakistan, with its tribal culture of honor and revenge for the killing of family and friends.

Meanwhile, after fleeing from Afghanistan to Pakistan in 2001, al Qaeda had rebuilt a large network of Pashtun militants in the Pashtun northwest. As the murdered Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad recounted in Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, President Pervez Musharraf, under pressure from Washington, began in 2003 to use the Pakistani army to try to destroy the remnants of al Qaeda by force with helicopter strikes and ground forces. But instead of crushing al Qaeda, those operations further radicalized the population of those al Qaeda base areas, by convincing them that the Pakistani government and army was merely a tool of U.S. control.

Frustrated by the failure of Musharraf to finish off al Qaeda and by the swift rise of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the Bush administration launched a drone war that killed large numbers of civilians in northwest Pakistan. An opinion survey by New American Foundation in the region last year found that 77 percent believed the real purpose of the U.S. "war on terror" is to "weaken and divide the Muslim world" and to "ensure American domination." And more than two-thirds of the entire population of Pakistan view the United States as the enemy, not as a friend, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

The CIA and the Bush and Obama administrations understood that drone strikes could never end the threat of terrorist plots in Pakistan, as outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden had told the incoming President, according to Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars. And if the Obama administration didn't understand then that the drone war was stoking popular anger at the government and the United States, it certainly does now. Former DIrector of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has pointed out that "hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan" because of the drone strikes.

Yet the night raids and the drone strikes continue, as though the risk of widespread and intense anger toward the United States in those countries doesn't make any difference to the policymakers.

There is only one way to understand this conundrum: there are winners and losers in the "war on terrorism". Ordinary Americans are clearly the losers, and the institutions and leaders of the military, the Pentagon and the CIA and their political and corporate allies are the winners. They have accumulated enormous resources and power in a collapsing economy and society.

They are not going to do anything about the increased risk to Americans from the hatred their wars have provoked until they are forced to do so by a combination of resistance from people within those countries and an unprecedented rebellion by millions of Americans. It's long past time to start organizing that rebellion.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. national security policy who has been independent since a brief period of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005). He has written regularly for Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.

Edited September 12, 2011 by DFH

[mawilson 2,133]

It's a bit too late to turn the other cheek. It's not like they'll stop hating us now.

[slim 1,525]

Whenever this comes up I have to ask, "what would you do if their military came over here?"

[mawilson 2,133]

Whenever this comes up I have to ask, "what would you do if their military came over here?"

Depends. Do we have a despotic military dictator in charge of the country? Did their military come over to overthrow said dictator?

[luckytxn 2,264]

It is never too late to withdraw all of our forces from around the world and bring them home.

[slim 1,525]

Depends. Do we have a despotic military dictator in charge of the country? Did their military come over to overthrow said dictator?

Even if they were "on your team" for a while, how long would you let them stay after they'd done so?

Also, I'd like to think we'd fight a despotic military dictator from within instead of relying on foreign intervention.

It is never too late to withdraw all of our forces from around the world and bring them home.

Nope. Never too late.

[mawilson 2,133]

Also, I'd like to think we'd fight a despotic military dictator from within instead of relying on foreign intervention.

You'd like to think that, but as history shows it's not always possible.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You'd like to think that, but as history shows it's not always possible.

hell look at the lazy people that come across the border into this country from south America and Mexico... Their attitude is like "well, sucks here, let's go screw over America." instead of fighting to take back their countries and make it better.

If all the illegal garbage crossing into this country actually stood up, they'd have millions strong against the BS governments.

[slim 1,525]

You'd like to think that, but as history shows it's not always possible.

History shows Americans will fight.

As Paul's pointed out though, our demographics are changing and they're not exactly getting stronger in the "resistance" department.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think what America started in the middle-east under the Bush administration has done a lot more damage than people realise, certainly more than American politicians are willing to admit.

While I think it can be reasonably argued that Al Qaeda is now more of a fringe organisation than it has ever been (because of the war in Afghanistan NOT the war in Iraq) I certainly do agree with the view that these conflicts have created resentment amongst the populations of those (and other) countries.

It will be quite telling what happens once the dust settles from what is currently going on in the middle east - if the new regimes that take over from former western sponsored dictators be as receptive to the US and to west as they have been in the past.

It is never too late to withdraw all of our forces from around the world and bring them home.

It's not but I think that's a pretty naive view of things. It's not as if the US gains strategic geo-political advantages from their overseas troop deployments or anything like that. Oh no.

Isolationism is stupid.

[slim 1,525]

I think what America started in the middle-east under the Bush administration has done a lot more damage than people realise, certainly more than American politicians are willing to admit.

Agreed.

While I think it can be reasonably argued that Al Qaeda is now more of a fringe organisation than it has ever been (because of the war in Afghanistan NOT the war in Iraq) I certainly do agree with the view that these conflicts have created resentment amongst the populations of those (and other) countries.

The "threat" (if there ever was one) is largely gone. However, the greater threat - the world not liking us anymore - is worse than it was before. Prior to '04 countries could work together for mutual benefit.

Now, the world is us and them.

It will be quite telling what happens once the dust settles from what is currently going on in the middle east - if the new regimes that take over from former western sponsored dictators be as receptive to the US and to west as they have been in the past.

It'll be just like what happened once Reagan took over. "He's out? Alright, here's your hostages."

The good thing about most countries is their people are about as educated as ours and as such, the wool over their eyes protects them from their government's dealings and also enables them to be duped into believing we're buddies again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The balance of power will inevitably tip towards China and Russia.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The balance of power will inevitably tip towards China and Russia.

That depends really on how 'willing' America is to let that happen.

We have a Navy with the capability of wiping China every other industrialized nation off the map.

I would find it hard to believe that the military industrial complex that is this country, would allow a nation like China (and especially Russia) to rise above it completely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That depends really on how 'willing' America is to let that happen.

We have a Navy with the capability of wiping China every other industrialized nation off the map.

I would find it hard to believe that the military industrial complex that is this country, would allow a nation like China (and especially Russia) to rise above it completely.

You really aren't in a position to dictate anything when your economy is in the crapper. China will rise above America - it is inevitable.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You really aren't in a position to dictate anything when your economy is in the crapper. China will rise above America - it is inevitable.

Sure you are. He who has the bigger guns wins. That's a fact of life.