[neverdem]

FWIW, it's none too specific. If we planned to de-ass Saudi Arabia, how were we too maintain the no-fly zones ad infinitum, especially when we had casus belli?

[ChocChipCookie]

The only way we can lose the war on terrorism to to backtrack out of it. Terorists are here to stay for a long, long while, and President Bush was correct in his assessment of it being a very, very long war.

[dmanLA]

The way we'll lose is if the liberals win. Kerry wins; Al Qaeda wins. Get it?

The only other way we'll lose is if we are not aggressive enough because of our 'friends' (foreign and domestic) are crying for human rights for terrorists.

[BnBlFlag]

We are not fighting a war on "terrorism" any more than we were fighting a war on "surprise attacks" after Pearl Harbor. We are fighting a war with radical Islam and until we recognize this fact, we cannot win. We will simply be tilting at windmills.

[JimSEA]

The author says the threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world.

This is an absurd statement of the author. Take the Declaration if Independence as a basic statement of American values. What part of "Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness" is in any way compatable with Islam???

[AntiGuv]

Well, just focusing on your specific question, we did not need bases in Saudi Arabia to maintain either no-fly zone. The Northern zone was maintained from bases in Turkey and the Southern zone could easily have been maintained from Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, or even from an aircraft carrier..

[GoLightly]

How long before the identity of the author is leaked?

[AHerald]

...headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.

That's supposed to give him credibility?

[the_Watchman]

The book author does not grasp the politics of the situation.

He correctly assesses that the problem is not criminal. This was the error made by the Clinton administration resulting in allowing states to harbor terrorist groups with no recriminations. Instead, we bomb aspirin factories and training camps.

It is indeed an Islamic insurgency, as the author suggests. However, the first step was to reverse the policies of the past and make it very clear that there would be consequences for any state that continued to harbor terrorists. Invading Iraq fit the bill.

Now we can expect that even if states do not police the terrorists within their midst, which Pakistan appears to be doing, they will at least give lip service to that effect and not advertise for the terrorists.

Remember that Afghanistan had been actively hosting Islamic terrorist camps. At least one of the perps of the first world trade center fled to Iraq. Hussein offer-red Bin Laden asylum in 1999.

This is not going happen next time.

I still contend that Bush and Blair were actually quite happy to move without U.N. consent. The Islamists were served notice that the U.S. did not feel compelled to play "mother may I" with that bankrupt body. As it was, the delays appear to have allowed Hussein to dispense with his WMD stockpiles and programs.

[Steel Wolf]

It is rare for a C.I.A. officer to publish a book while still serving at the agency and highly unusual for the book to focus on such a politically explosive topic. Under C.I.A. rules, the book had to be cleared by the agency before it could be published. It was approved for release on condition that the author and his internal agency not be identified.

Um, okay...

In the book, "Imperial Hubris," the author is identified only as "Anonymous," but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.

There's probably not too many 22 year vererans of the CIA who are still serving in a senior counterterrorism post, that also happened to head the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999. Half the Agency probably knows who this joker is, which means than 3/4s of the journalists in Washington do, too.

[lowbridge]

bump

[unspun]

"In the book, the author denounced the American invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes."

---

And surely, he had more training in the entire set of strategic issues involved in the Middleast, and Arab and Moslem lands, than anyone in the White House.

Too bad that disgruntled plumbers can't write books and have something profitable to do for/during retirement. Or, bricklayers, etc....

[dmanLA]

Here is the money question. If he is so good, why isn't he still on the 'Bin Laden' post?

1999? Hmmm. Did Bush do a little house cleaning maybe? Disgruntled maybe?

[ApesForEvolution]

"...the United States is losing the war against radical Islam..."

Hey, I thought this was a War on Terror?!

[A CA Guy]

We finally have Clerics coming out and denouncing their terrorists, I think they are wrong about losing this.

[weegee]

"We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

We have seen minimal attacks on America since 9-11-2001. There was the attempt by the shoe bomber to down a plane in flight, there was the anthrax attack, there was the DC sniper duo, there was the LAX counter shooting, and maybe a few other "attacks" that we know about.

There have been more successful attacks against our allies in the war on terrorism (Australians were targeted in the nightclub bombing and the Spanish elections were targeted in the Madrid train bombings). There are attacks on civilians (kidnappings/torching) but these went on prior to the war as well and are not happening in significant numbers.

Israel is still being attacked (and I couldn't say if the number of attacks is more or less). Even the terrorist attacks in Iraq are more show than severity.

Russia has had some terrorist attacks.

Compare this to what America (and the world) faced PRIOR to 9-11-2001 and it is hard to make the case that the terrorist are "winning".

[AnimalLover]

Ping

[Old Professer]

Violence is the tool used to instill fear which is the essence of terrorism by definition; in that sense, we are losing.

[hgro]

Any person that doesn't have the balls to use his own name when writing a book knocking the government should be ignored. He can assumed to be a coward and a liar.

[mtbopfuyn]

"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

Gotta agree with him on that point. We've not made a dent and it'll be a long and uphill struggle before we do, if we do. We're already outnumbered and are more so every day. They've already moved in and set up house, home, and cell next door. Our only advantage is our technology but it's being sold out to every Tom, Dick, and Omar who has a few coins in his pocket.

[montag813]

Surely one of this Arab ass-kissing skunk's co-workers knows who he is so he can be outed and fired (and perhaps prosecuted) after the election. This is disgusting. "War on Islam" my ass. I WISH it were so.