Focus 580; Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

In this first hour of the program we'll be talking with a former member of the U.S. intelligence community who says that the United States is losing the war on terror. Our guest with the program is Michael Scheuer. He spent more than 20 years working for the CIA and during the time that he was still there near the end of his time at the CIA he published anonymously a book titled Imperial Hubris Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. It's published by brasses and is certainly out there on the bookstore still with at least a copy I have without his name on it. He has since resigned from the CIA but he continues to make the argument that the greatest danger for Americans confronting the radical Islamist threat is the belief that Muslims attack us for what we are and for what we think rather than for what we do. He's joining us this morning by telephone. We'll talk about some of the ideas in the book also get some of his reaction to what has been happening in Washington. The umbrella of restructuring of intelligence gathering some of the recent changes that have happened at the CIA and of course

questions are welcome from people who are listening. The only thing we ask of callers is that people just try to be brief. We ask that so that we can keep the program moving. Get in as many different people as possible. But of course questions comments are welcome here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 is the number to call and it would be a long distance call for you. Use our toll free line. That's eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 again. Locally here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 and toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Mr. Scheuer Hello. Good morning sir how are you. I'm fine thank you and yourself. I'm very well thank you good well we certainly appreciate you giving us some of your time. I have been collecting articles about you for a while now in anticipation of talking and there was a piece that appeared actually last early in December last year this happened to be in the L.A. Times or probably with some other places as well where you were the headline that they put on this piece was why I resigned from the CIA.

Why did you resign from the CIA. Several reasons. The first was because I thought Americans were not being leveled with by their leaders. Neither Republican nor Democrat about the danger we faced from the Islamic Islamist movement around the world. Our leaders focusing on that the idea that we're being attacked because Muslims hate the way we live because they hate our elections and our freedoms and and our way of life generally and I thought that that from what I knew after 20 years was wrong and indeed what was motivating the violence was our policies toward the Islamic world. The second reason I resigned was because frankly the two commissions that investigated the 9/11 attacks really were astounding in the sense that they couldn't find anyone responsible for anything. And I thought before we reorganized the intelligence community

and assessments of personal failure or personal dereliction should have been done. And basically those were the top two reasons I resigned. What do you think about the. Well let's first just talk about the changes that have happened in C.I.A. we have a new director and a number of individuals that were in top positions have left now. So we have a number of new people in place. Do you think that that is good for the agency or not good or remains to be seen. Well I think it was good for Mr. Tenet and several of his senior lieutenants to have a laugh. I tend to believe that they were very risk averse in terms of taking chances overseas to protect Americans. They like much of our Senior bureaucracy is more worried about America's reputation and European opinion and an amorphous things like that rather than protecting Americans. I thought we should give Mr. Goss the new director of central intelligence an opportunity to

set his own ship right. But unfortunately and I have to say that I'm at a distance now several of the senior people that left were people you would have not wanted to leave the deputy director of operations for example Mr. capice was really one of the better officers in our service and probably the best deputy director of operations we would have had in a decade. And in addition there seems to be whether a misunderstanding or not a mood within the agency that. Certain color the cold orthodoxy is required by the analysts in the sense of not objecting to strenuously or criticizing too strenuous strenuously rather the impact of the U.S. interests abroad. Let me ask you to react to one other thing that has been in the News a good deal lately and that is the reports now that it least for the past couple of years the Department of

Defense has been operating its own covert operations department and that a lot of the reporting that's been done on this lately suggests that this is yet another kind of weakening of the CIA that the CIA is being pushed aside that the secretary of defense has essentially in a sense put together his own agency. And also there some people are concerned that there isn't the kind of oversight of the activities of this branch of the Pentagon that there would be over the CIA you may have some thought about that but I guess what you think and what you think about the more general point about is the is the influence of the CIA declining do you think it will decline further. I think our influence has declined. And I'm not all that not always deservedly so clearly there's been things we've been wrong about in mistakes the agency has made but there is within the US

intelligence community at least some members of it a desire to do things that they're not built to do in the Defense Department for example is not constructed to collect human intelligence. And the FBI especially under Judge Freeh but also under Mr. Mueller seemed much more interested in deploying their officers overseas to collect intelligence rather than leaving them at home to do their job domestically. And I tend to think that the CIA has 50 years of experience in collecting human intelligence. Again we've made mistakes but the problem we're going to run into is is Services bumping into each other over seas. It's a Defense Department doing its own business in the FBI doing its own business. One thing that certainly eroded under Mr. Tennant was the notion that the director of Central Intelligence was the commander of all overseas human

collection operations. He certainly led other departments within the government to kind of create their own services. We have a caller here to bring into the conversation when we do that someone listening this morning in Indiana our line for toll free line. Hello hello. Three questions the first one is just the thing you just mentioned that you think Tennant allow I guess in a separation of powers in a sense. Why do you think he did that. Is it a philosophical position or is it a reality check with the Bush administration. And number two the last week or 10 days a number of pundits have talked about the relationship between our own American Revolution and what's could possibly happen in Iraq now that the election is over in the sense that we may be there for an awfully long time as we prove to the British. You know

you can have troops here but you're not going to command the countryside. And I guess the third question is What do you think the. Islamics are going to do now in Iraq. I just wonder you know there was so there was a certain a certain shortage of attacks and so I just got the idea that they're you know formulating something to do something drastic. And I started thinking Kelli could start killing the people who won the election. And I just one of those three questions if you could talk to them say yes or no thanks I'm the first question I think Mr. Tenet did let his control over the intelligence community erode if you'll remember when he appeared before the 9/11 Commission and all of the commissioners congratulated him on being the look so well liked among all of the Department the intelligence community and what they had said to me was that Mr. Tenet was not very well respected because you cannot be DCI and be liked

by everyone. You have to be able to knock heads together and certainly in my experience. And I had some direct experience at least on the issue of Osama bin Laden. Mr Tenet was never willing to knock heads together to get things done. And the relationship between Iraq and the American Revolution I wrote a book earlier in one thousand and in 2002 called Through Our Enemies Eyes and I compared it at least tried to make an analogy between what was sama Bin Ladden and his followers were up to and what our founding fathers were up to. And one point I would make is that the Islamists across the board in the Islamic world tried peaceful remonstrance first. They appealed to their governments including Bin Ladden they appealed to the king of Saudi Arabia where the president of Egypt. And it was only after those. Remonstrances were were ignored or the people who wrote them were arrested. Did they turn to

violence. So there is a certain pattern that is reminiscent of our our revolution. It's not to suggest a moral equivalency but the pattern is very similar. And I think what's going to happen in Iraq basically is the mujahideen the insurgents are extraordinarily patient and perseverance. We saw it in Afghanistan against the Soviets. They will continue to fight a low level insurgency that will keep us tied up there and bleeding for the forseeable future. They're not easily defeated people and basically from their perspective an election doesn't really mean anything. Especially if it turns out that the Shias have overwhelmingly won the election the Shias of course are viewed by heretics by most of the Islamic world. So those are the kind of three way I would frame the three answers to those questions. All right. Other people who are listening are certainly welcome to call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 Those are the numbers. Our

guest Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years. He has quite a lot of experience in national security issues related to both Afghanistan and South Asia. He is author of a book that he published when he was still in the CIA and it was published anonymously. The title of the book Imperial Hubris Why the West is Losing the War on Terror brassy says the publisher it's gotten quite a lot of attention. He resigned from the CIA last fall and continues to now in a public way make the same kind of criticism and use the same points. If you have questions comments you can call in a 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free. 2 2 2 9 4 5. We do have someone here on our cell phone so we will not make them wait. We'll go right there to again our line number four. Hello. Hi I had a question I want to talk to the point of I heard of the comment that comparing the insurgency in Iraq with the American Revolution I don't I'm not sure what I'm understanding by that are

you being compared because I don't see that as being an equal comparison of the American Revolution which was started by you know people in the United States rising up against the Imperial forces of England I don't see that connection necessarily Is that what I'm understanding are. Yes clearly from the perspective of the Islamic. They have been under the yoke of what they would term imperial powers primarily the United States in their support for governments such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia Algeria Jordan Kuwait. Basically tyrannies that have operated under the aegis of American economic and military power for years and I'm not arguing that they're right. What I'm arguing is that until we see their perspective I believe we're not going to realize how dangerous they are. And again all of this evolved to violence after a rather lengthy period of

peaceful remonstrance was not heeded by the house sowed family in Saudi Arabia or for President Mubarak in in in Egypt. You can't make a thing cleared up. All right well thanks for the call well that does indeed raise the questions about these insurgencies and whether or not in fact they are insurgencies in that sense and that it is it is perhaps only secondarily about the United States. Well it's it's it was secondarily about the United States but bin Laden his influence on the Islamist movement has been. He came to believe and argued that because Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were tyrannies dictatorships immune to international opinion in the concerns of human rights advocates that their security services and militaries could do virtually anything and get away with it. Bin Laden argued ineffectively to some extent so far

that we're never going to replace these tyrannies unless we replace their sponsor and the United States is the person or the entity to which Bin Ladden has focused much of the Islamic world arguing that if we can drive the Americans from the region either by attacking them in the region or causing them so much pain at home that they withdraw from the region that the rest of the of the rest of our problems i.e. the house owed family the Mubarak the Israelis will fall of their own weight because once the American shield is removed they'll be rather easy pickings for the president. And in the way that he has talked about the war on terror has done a couple of things he has cautioned the American people that it is not right. It's not a conventional war that it's something that will not be easily won that it is something that's going to take a long time. At the same time I think the administration would point to some successes. They would say that Afghanistan is no

longer an important base of operations for al-Qaida. While we have not captured bin Laden we have captured some of his some of the top leaders in the organization we perhaps know more about them than we did before. And. There has been no there has been no major terrorist event since. Certainly nothing of the scale of September 11th. Since then and for and I think the administration. And probably point to all of those things as successes. How do you assess what those things that that might be considered to be success in the war on terror to date. I think we certainly have scored some some very very important victories over al Qaeda and their allied groups. But I think within the assertions of those those triumphs there is a bit of really an analysis by assertion. We certainly won the battle of the cities in

Afghanistan but the countryside and the Pakistani border area clearly still belong to al Qaeda the Taliban and other people who are opposed to the government in Kabul. And I tend to believe that perhaps we've made too much of the elections in the sense that the returns of the election divided exactly along ethnic groups the Pashtoon tribes in the south who have long dominated Afghanistan have voted for Mr. Karzai and not because they're in favor of democracy but they're favor of their tribal domination. The other parts of the country the minorities voted for the tatic Mr. Qanuni who is a representative of the aspirations of of ethnic groups that have long been. At the bottom of the political totem poll if you will. So I think Afghanistan is still a story to be told. One of the one of the problems we have in terms of there hasn't been a terrorist event in the United States since 9/11 of comparable dimensions is that there are two

things. One is that a failure a consistent failure in the U.S. intelligence community is to believe that if someone has in that attacked us when we expect them to attack us it's because he's defeated or can't attack us. Now that may be true but in the larger picture the world has gone Osama Bin Ladin's way for the most part since 9/11. We are now involved in two protected wars one in Iraq one in Afghanistan. We have military people in the Philippines in Yemen and other places fighting Islamic insurgents and al Qaeda's overall goal has been to bleed the United States economically. And I think if you take just focus on the budget deficit in the way it's it's sort of escalating. I think you would have to say that they're having some success in those terms. The final point I would make and the top leaders in the organization we have done a tremendous job in taking out those leaders

that we were cognizant of on 9/11. And the CIA frankly has been at the spearhead of that effort. I would point out that the one of the people we didn't know was in the leadership on 9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Muhammad who is the person that designed in ran the operation. What we really have reason I believe is a body count of people we've never had a study we either academically or within the government of the Sinai in structure in organizational composition of al-Qaida. And until we have something like that to measure against again we have basically a body count rather than a measure of progress. Let's talk with some other listeners. Next someone again on the cell phone line. I have a sort of double fold question which I want to preface it with my understanding of the history in one thousand eighty. Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear and if it was a reactor What if just a

plant. And I don't know if that was coordinated with the US it was just a preemptive strike by the Israelis in the Gulf War. I know that Israel was persuaded not to react to any Scud missile attacks from Iraq in order to not disturb the coalition that had been formed. Also my understanding is that Israel was a very strong proponent of the invasion of Iraq under Bush 2 or 43 or whatever and. I'd like to know what you think about the coordination between Israeli policy and American policy. But more important than that the the Islamic perception of that I know that the Loddon never mention the Palestinians until very late in the game when he was declaring his brotherhood with them. And the last part of the question is the most important. There are rumblings going on in media and at conferences and

at announcements from this administration about someone taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities and that has to be a reference to Israel again because as you know the people who would really be able to do that. And if that happens how exactly will affect us in terms of our relations or any hope of having a relationship with the Islamic community. And I'll just listen to your answer. Well thank you for those questions. The first point I would make is just a general point that bin Laden has focused on the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation since at least 1979 since. In other words since he became involved in Islamic politics and Islamist insurgencies and militancy he identified Israel our support for Israel as a major reason why Muslims should oppose the United States. And until just 9/11 he consistently referred

to the just tell us that Palestinian problem particularly drawing attention to the Israeli attack on those two refugee camps in Lebanon in the 80s should and I and I can't remember the other one. So part of the problem Americans have and Westerners have is they don't have ready access to what bin Laden has said. And I see one of the New York publishers we're going to publish a book of Bin Ladin's speeches and interviews and if they have been really roundly castigated But if such a book was published I think Americans would quickly see that Palestine and Israel have been at it. At the forefront of his concern since at least 1979. On the other points in that and let me speak from the Islamist perspective I've been identified as kind of a anti-semite and by some a rightwing weasel as they say. But the truth of the matter is for the Islamists in Israel in the United States are interchangeable and

it's our policy toward Israel is one that's viewed as the tail wagging the dog if you will that America doesn't behave as a great power in the sense that he had basically given Israel carte blanche to do what it wants to do. And again I'm not saying that the current reality of the situation but it is the perception across the Islamic world and so often perception is reality. And I think the point of Iran's nuclear weapons or nuclear program I think Vice President Cheney came right out and said that. The Israelis may move if we don't and I suspect that one of the factors that will come into play an American decision about policies toward Iran will be our estimate of what the Iranians intend or what the Israelis intend to do these of Iran and certainly the Israelis do things that we are surprised by. So it is a it is a big pressure point on the United States. It's a point which

our alliance with the Israelis certainly leads to dead Americans in the Islamic world. And it's an alliance we need to preserve. America has a terrible record of dropping alliances with countries but it's certainly an alliance that needs to be restructured three flecked the fact that America is the great power and is Israel is a minor power. Let me just ask you in there we'll get some other callers here to talk for just a moment further about Iran because as the caller points out there has been some reporting in the I guess the piece that stands out in my mind is the recent article that was written for The New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh saying that going back to last summer that the Pentagon had been involved in covertly scouting for potential attack points in Iran and that within the administrate. And within the Pentagon there apparently is this idea that the at the United States presumably could carry out a series of

surgical strikes possibly simply with dropping bombs on them or possibly sending in troops and taking out a number of sites that have to do with Iran's military defense structure particularly with with nuclear its nuclear infrastructure and that then the idea is that then the people of Iran would see the weakness of its religious leadership and that then there would be some kind of popular uprising that the people would rise up and sweep aside the theocracy and then we would have a democratic Western oriented and new government in Iran that's the. The line of thinking that they seem to be following and I wonder what you think about that scenario does that. First of all does it seemed reasonable that that would work out that way. And do you think that the administration would be prepared to given everything that we have been through still being involved in Afghanistan still be involved in Iraq

would actually go ahead and attack militarily would attack Iran. A strange idea. I'm not an expert at all on Iran but I think it was there would be a certain negligence if our military was not at least trying to pinpoint where Iranian facilities were located I think that's just prudent prudent intelligence collection. My own view for what it's worth sir is that the Iranian government the theocracy is in rather tough shape at the moment and there seems to be a great deal of popular reason. Toward the theocrats. I tend to think that Iran is a very nationalistic nation however and American attack for an Israeli attack which America condones would more than likely rally support to the theocratic regime that has now rules around in it would rather strengthen the Islamic or the revolution and perhaps give it a stay of execution rather than

finishing it off I think. I think it's an attack on Iran either by us or by the Israelis or by both would probably have the opposite effect than that in destroying that regime. The final point I would make is. I can't really. I don't really understand what the government is up to the neo conservatives seem to be really just another brand of Wilsonian ism with a more hands on approach than Wilson had. And they certainly don't seem to understand foreign venue's or foreign cultures very well so I guess there is as good a possibility as not that they're planning some kind of a follow on activity for their third conflict after Afghanistan and Iraq. Let me introduce Again our guest we have some other callers We're talking with Michael Scheuer. He served in the CIA for 22 years. His experiences in national security issues related to both have Ghana stand in South Asia. He published a book initially

anonymously while he was still in the CIA came out last year titled Imperial Hubris Why the war why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Published by brass is it is out there in bookstores now if you want take a look at it. He resigned last fall from the agency but continues to make some of the same kinds of criticisms and his here and we're taking your questions 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 that's for Champaign-Urbana listeners toll free 800 1:58. Nine for five. Next we'll go to a caller in Charleston and that is line for. Hello. Yes. It occurs to me that the overview of the events of the last four years should signify that the US and particularly are still acting out the old colonialist policies of Western Europe should realize that people are not going to be benefited by what

the neo cons and others are calling democracy when we should reflect upon the democracy that we have a Suppose a democracy the democracy we have here which is nothing but a clique. And overwhelmed by capitalist powers that freedom is nonexistent has no existence. Now we all subjugated to money and to the constant competition to get it to hang onto it to have some form of security. And to think that we're going to say that we that we're not thinking we are spreading that doctrine around the world and if the election in a wreck in Iraq or the one supposes that your deck gets just articulated in Iran what is the sum total of all of that. People are still not free that the people understand that's why only 50 percent of people vote in the US which is supposedly an all time democracy when is it all just a sham. And that's what is hurting the world

and we cannot help the powers that be here to invite into the mix what we call terrorism which I'm struggling to understand all that to this day. And the comments early on after 9/11 that the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Well how are we going to come out of that haze. And what is freedom and what is serenity and security and all those things while the world's superpower sits about and began to agitate and to. Provoke all the things that your guest is talking about. I don't know if there's an answer to that but I had to make those comments because we need to understand the world we live in and to be educated properly and get away from the Muslim isms and the constant pounding of TV in this country and where is shipping data around the world to you. So hollering often. Thank you.

Well I don't know you may react to that any way you like. One point I would make and then add in that I'm not is bleak in terms of our own democracy and how our country works as the caller but the one thing I would state is I think sometimes Americans could and should forgive our leaders for not fully understanding foreign cultures or languages or or religious systems. But the one thing I think we can forgive American leaders for is not knowing their own history. And the idea of democracy in America really is is not a new idea. You know you can pick an arbitrary date pick pick Runnymede in 12 15 where the barons took some power from from King John. Our democracy has been under way for eight centuries now and it's still far from perfection and in many of the problems the caller pointed out need to be addressed. Surely but. The idea that somehow we can take

800 years of experience which have been marked by in this country for civil war and lynching and delayed voting rights procedures and around the world in Europe suffered through a hundred years of religious war on their way to democracy. So I think there's a fundamental. I made U.K. didn't it about American foreign policy in terms of how hard it is to disturb establish a democracy. And the other point I would make is that there's such a cultural gap between what we see as positive and what at least the much of the Muslim world sees as a positive for the most part. When we urge a Muslim country to adapt a secular democracy and say look at how well it works for us. That's that's exactly correct it is brought us prosperity and equity and a general lifestyle that was is unprecedented in world history. But a secular democracy to so many

Muslims and they don't have to be fundamentalists or militants. Secularism simply means turning your back on God and not many Muslims of any variety are willing to do that. And so I said Well I'm more optimistic than the than the caller about our own situation. I am not optimistic at all that the current set of leaders we've had in the last two decades really understand how hard the struggle has been for America to get to where it is and how unlikely it is that that can be put on a CD-ROM and given to the Iraqis and installed there in the next six months. We're headed into our last 20 minutes now. I have some other callers here and I will get right back to you but let me ask you this because we spend a lot of time talking about what has gone wrong to this point. Now if I ask you the question Given everything that. Has happened we've got to start from where we are now and go forward. What do you think the United States should be doing now. What should our priorities be now.

Strange I think we're in a very difficult situation because by a bit by the basic failure to realize what our enemy is is fighting us for we have left ourselves with only two weapons so fired two weapons at hand with which to fight the Muslim insurgents or is Sunni militants however you want to term them. And that's the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence services and those two organizations can hold the ring for for a period of time. But what we really need to do with her going to approach this problem in a positive sense in the sense that we're going to triumph and disarm our enemy is we must look at those policies which Bin Ladan and so many other Muslims have identified as threats to their religion and threats to their society our unqualified support for Israel our ability to keep oil prices low or at least acceptable to Western consumers our support for countries such as China Russia

India who are perceived in the Muslim world as a as oppressing Muslims and especially our support for Muslim tyrannies from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. I'm lest we we somehow look at those policies and say Are these still really in the interests of the United States. We will be left to fight only with our military and our intelligence services which will mean a much greater death toll of our own people and of the people we're fighting in. In many in many ways this is a wonderful situation to be in for the United States because our destiny is in our own hands. Our enemy is focused on policies those policies allow our enemy to grow in terms of popularity sympathy donations and actually people who will step up and take rifles to kill Americans. Our policies are Bin Ladin's only indispensable ally. And so if we take a look at those policies and try to amend them to a to a point where

they can be looked at as positives in our arsenal of defense weapons I think that that's the way we need to go. And it's not an appeasement argument it's not a a any kind of a surrender is the argument. It's simply the fact that no war is won by simply the military and the intelligence services. You must have a credible diplomatic policy economic policy public diplomacy policy. And right now we have only military and intelligence. Let's. With some other listeners next in line is Urbana line 3. Hello. Yeah good morning. I was wondering if you had an opinion as to how serious you thought the threat might be acquiring a nuclear device of some kind. I think sure that that's a very serious situation. But the intelligence community is. The 9/11 Commission report showed has no one since late in

1996 said bin Laden had constructed the acquisition team that resembled that of a nation state. He approached it in the same careful manner he used engineers and scientists and people who could tell whether he was being scammed or not by anyone who wanted to sell him a weapon of mass destruction. We also know that he has religious validation or religious justification to use a weapon against the United States. But most I think distressingly and it's something that that I think shows perhaps that I'm not broad enough in my readings. I was surprised during the election campaign to hear Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry arguing about whether the Soviet nuclear arsenal should be fully under control by 2007 or 2000 intense. I had been operating under the assumption that that was the first thing we did after the fall of the Berlin Wall but apparently it's not. So given bin Ladden. It's a really

superior organization in terms of trying to acquire one. His religious justification being adequate to use one and the fact that one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals is still not under control. I think we need to assume that the chances that he will acquire some sort of a weapon are fairly good in one. And I must say that he's not eat interested at all in a weapon of mass destruction for its deterrence purposes. He wants to use it as a first strike weapon. He's not an apocalyptic man or a neo list someone who wouldn't have anything to do if he wasn't fighting. He clearly wants to end this war in defeats in his terms the United States. So the danger is the weapons out there. He wants it and he will use it if he has it. And I consider it a very dangerous situation. You know I had read that Nunn-Lugar had a program where they thought maybe 50 or 80 billion dollars would. Be necessary maybe to try to track down a lot of

the highly enriched uranium and other material. I don't think that's really gone anywhere and it would seem that that should be more of a priority. It certainly seems to me that there should have been a priority again it's a shadow or a symbol of my ignorance at least in not being aware that we had not operated quickly and put those materials under under supervision in law. I think long since Al Qaeda has stopped looking to build a weapon of its own simply because it was too complicated and too time consuming it. And they have been looking for an off the shelf type of weapon either one of these quote unquote suitcase nuclear weapons or the nucular artillery shells or other weapons that are that are all set to be used. So again it's a situation which we need to worry and I would think we need to accelerate the efforts we are making to assist the Soviets in securing their weaponry. Just about 10 minutes left in this part of focus again I want to thank the caller will get some others in just a moment. I

do want to reintroduce our guest Michael Scheuer. He served in the CIA for 22 years working in national security. Issues related to both Afghanistan and South Asia. He's the author of the book Imperial Hubris Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Published by brassy says at the time it was published it was published anonymously because he was still in the CIA he has since resigned. Questions are welcome we will continue to take callers and take as many as we can the next in line is Wellington that would be line number two. Hello. Yes I thought that was kind of interesting the point you articulated that out in trying to post fake ransom to economical run up terrorist activities etc. and I never really gave too much thought to something like that until a couple years ago I was taking a class in one of the readings we had to do articulated that between supporting the measure Danaan Afghanistan and Star Wars and a few other

promotions but this was in this writer's view the way Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees and I do see some color is there. I thought it was quite interesting that you did articulate that point of view. Well thank you ma'am. This is another point I think I referred earlier to the kind of opposition there has been to publishing bin Laden's writings and what he said. And in the summer of 2000 into in 2003 in al Qaeda's electronic journals on the Internet there was a discussion amongst themselves on how they were going to defeat the United States and they looked at the Vietnam War and decided that the North Vietnamese and the Soviets and the Chinese had decided that our center of gravity that our most vulnerable point was public opinion and had attacked them and were successful. And within al Qaeda's own journals they they've discussed this and said no that may have been true there then but it's not true now. What is the

center of gravity for the Americans at the moment is is their economy. And I think that that was. That is their intention. I think every dollar we spend in Iraq is is is really a dollar that Bin Ladden views is as another drop of our blood being shed. And so it's a very very important. These people in the in many ways are very important to listen to I don't think America has ever had an enemy who has been more precise about what he's going to do why he's going to do it and what he hopes to attain by doing it. In some ways the canon of his writings is not unlike my own camp. And the regret the West has they have not paid more attention to that book when it was initially published in 19 I think to one thousand twenty three. So I think we really do have to worry about our economy and we have to see the deficit is at least

a partial victory for Osama bin Laden. Well thank you for the call. Let's go on again. Champagne this will be the next line number one. Hello. Well I wonder if you'd give your opinion of a conversation I had with a Iranian academic over the weekend. He described the nucular policy of the country as a no lose policy. If they're successful it adds to the prestige of the regime. But if we go in and destroy the or attempt to destroy the installations it will rally the Iranian people behind the regime as they have never had their support before and I think I would add it wouldn't be that easy to knock out the installations as it was against Saddam because they've been a good deal smarter. They've scattered the installations around the country. Most are underground and they're hardened and there's a lot of duplications.

Here's a comment I would agree that they have Iran is a much more formidable adversary than Saddam ever would. Saddam was a tin pot dictator with a with an organization that was brutal but not even really up to third world standards in terms of military. We discussed around a little bit earlier and I do agree that it's very likely that the people who are opposing the theocracy the theocratic regime at the moment would rally to them. Iran is a very nationalist country and very proud of it. But two millennia old history and I think an attack would certainly rally nationalism and this and the opponents of the regime to support the other point I would make is an attack on Iran might have the effect of doing something that has not been done in the past thousand years and that's a bridge to bridge this sectarian gap between Shias and Sunni

in the in the Sunni militant war against the United States. So she is for the most part has stayed on the sidelines. I think an attack on Iran might well put both of those back on the same side of the field opposed against us. So at the end of the day we might not only have a stronger theocracy in Iraq or in Iran rather I'm sorry but a stronger Islamist militant movement around the world. I think you're probably right. I think Iran would very much like to be leaders of Islam. And we might well take it away from school I think. I think sure they have very much that aspiration but there are so many times more Sudanese in the world and in many ways the Sunni's are so much more powerful in terms of money and territory and just the

overwhelming dominance of the Islamic religion that it would be very hard for Iran to ever be used as she is to be the leader of the movement but certainly an attack by the United States would make them more acceptable as partners with the Sunni next colors in Chicago. Let's go there line for hello hello yes good morning gentlemen. Morning other question. Mine is might is they had you know we have been pumped ever since 9/11 with the information of weapons of mass destruction. And now that President Bush has said that you know there really really is none or they can't find any. What does your guest feel the real reason for us going into Iraq was for. Oh I think they really truly believe there were weapons of mass destruction there so I think sometimes we forget that within the United Nations and with NATO there was no real disagreement that that Saddam was still working on WMD.

I think there is that it was mistaken obviously but I think that was a concern. Certainly the whole business about a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq was a fabrication. Just to put it bluntly. There also might have been a desire to try to stabilize stabilize oil markets because America has just not been willing to move away from fossil fuels toward alternate energy supplies. So I think there's a there's a range of motivations but the one thing that killed us frankly is that it doesn't appear that anyone ever considered the impact on the Islamic world of our war in Iraq of our occupation now of the second holiest place in Islam. And that to me is the tragedy. The intelligence failure really lies in not realizing the impact the negative impact it had on the war

against terrorism or the War Against bin Laden ism. As far as the intelligence goes though it's you know if you have a business and you find a place that makes widgets 20 you know 20 percent cheaper than what you're buying before you know when somebody tells you that you know you can get them over here. Well but wouldn't you investigate this I mean wouldn't you know it seems to me that the intelligence of intelligence here you know I mean who are these guys you know were saying that you know this is what's happening or whatever was totally disregarded by President Bush in his advisors and according to the cloud of thin and different people that of been on the radio voicing the opinion that you know this guy was was strictly looking for things for Iraq. Well that's certainly the the the the word that's out in the media I think. And and frankly it's unfortunate but only George Tenet knows what he told the president and the secretary of state. So I think I can tell Mr. Tenet's book comes out we're we're we're

really not going to know. And one of the problems though caus back to not only the Bush administration but to the Clinton administration in that they they both preach very very strenuously that this has nothing to do with what we do in the world but everything to do with the way we live and that they hate our our society. And so they don't regard this as important. They don't regard our policy as an important motivation to our enemy. And it's a tragic mistake for America and you can see the way we're paying for it now really all over the world. We're going to have to stop there because we've come to the end of the time. We just want to say Mr. Scheuer thank you very much we certainly appreciate you being with us today. It was my pleasure you're very kind.