Skip to comments.Bush vs The Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror
Posted on 07/29/2003 9:31:38 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
Just released today!
List Price: $25.95 Price: $18.17 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details. You Save: $7.78 (30%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
Laurie Mylroie: "Free Republic is a great place--a lot of people read it." Tue, 15 Jul 2003
Chapter 2 is entitled "deception and self-deception," and discusses at some length the WWII Allied disinformation campaign code-named "Operation Fortitude." General George Patton, highly respected by the Germans but in the doghouse over having slapped two shellshocked GIs at a field hospital in Italy, was put "in charge" of a huge--but entirely ficticious--First United States Army Group "poised" to assault Pas de Calais.
It is a familiar story to many, but one from which Professor Mylroie has a little-noticed moral. She points out that Operation Fortitude was not discontinued on D-Day but was kept going at full tilt long afterwards. The Germans, having been convinced of the existence of that force and having made decisions of the basis of that "knowledge," actually acquired a vested interest in that "certainty."For another five weeks, until mid-July, Hitler still expected the main Allied force to arrive at Pas de Calais, and therefore held back crucial forces . . .. . . CIA training includes training in practicing as well as defending against deception. In addition to learning the history of military deception, intelligence analysts learn to be aware of their own prior assumptions by matching wits with a professional magician--who invariably proves to students that they too can indeed be fooled.This insight has important implications. The author's point in citing it is that the information linking al Qaeda to 9/11 was too easily obtained by half, and that for all we actually know, 9/11 was an Iraqi operation and al Qaeda was, at least in that case, more a willing front for Saddam than an actual perpetrator. OBL's video showed him absorbing credit for the attack, and it is easy to see what he got out of the deal. But his essentially contemptuous reference to the other hijackers' being ignorant of the fact that the hijack pilot intended that the planes would crash rather than landing is far more understandable if fact those men were Iraqi operatives rather than people known to, and loyal to, himself personally.
In real life, of course, deception plays out diffferently than it does in a magic show. Instead of a momment of "aha!" there is a gradual recognition of a disturbing possibilty. And instead of the rueful appreciation of the well-executed trick, there is the unpleasant sensation of having been made a dupe.
People's egos and career concerns almaost inevitably come into play, and those who have been duped resist admittingh it as long as possible--and sometimes longer . . .
So the deceiver quickly finds an unlikely ally in the deceived. At a certain point--once sef-deception has kicked in--the effort of concealment becomes almost superfluous.
Saddam had plenty of motive for attacking us but, having a known address, also ample reason to see us assign the blame to someone else. OBL was glad to see the attack carried out, pleased to take credit for it, and contemptuous of the downside of taking the credit for it. And as to the "Islamic fanatacism" required to motivate the suicide missions, we saw suicide missions ordered by Saddam during the invasion--people blowing past checkpoints when our soldiers had arms at the ready--without any implication of "Islamic" fanaticism being involved.
And was the anthrax really a copycat echo rather than part-and-parcel of 9/11? The author says even the US government doesn't have the ability to make anthrax weponized the way the powder in some of the envelopes was. So in truth it's far less likely to have been produced by "a white man in a white van" than by a state-sponsored R&D effort. By one of two countries, one of which happened to be Iraq.
Bump to my #8, a book report on a fascinating read about Iraq. And why we--and the State Dept. and the CIA--know some things about 9/11 that just ain't so.
The book is very positive towards the Bush/Rumsfeld approach to the WOT.
Do you think your Iraq ping list would be interested?
was the anthrax really a copycat echo rather than part-and-parcel of 9/11?If in fact Saddam was the perpetrator of 911, including the anthrax attacks (if in fact al Qaeda was merely gleaning all the credit by fronting for Saddam), and Operation Iraqi Freedom was far more crucial than Bush ever let on . . . and Afghanistan was more nearly a "diversion." Not a "diversion from the WOT," but a diversion from the main thrust which was Operation Iraqi Freedom--a temporizing measure while OIF was in initial preparation.
The author says even the US government doesn't have the ability to make anthrax weponized the way the powder in some of the envelopes was. So in truth it's far less likely to have been produced by "a white man in a white van" than by a state-sponsored R&D effort. By one of two countries, one of which happened to be Iraq.
OBL was glad to see the attack carried out, pleased to take credit for it, and contemptuous of the downside of taking the credit for it. . . or perhaps hopeful of drawing us into the same Afghan terrain which defeated the Soviets. We walked right into his trap . . . and broke the trap.
Bush could not, perhaps, convict Saddam in a court of law on charges of complicity in 911. OTOH Bush did know Saddam had made sure that Bush didn't know he was innocent, either. And Bush knew that if Saddam was the perpetrator of the anthrax attack, failing to overthrow him was not an option.
So Bush simply acted on the basis of safety for America, and told Saddam in his cell,
Notice [below] that Dr. Mylroie plainly says that Clinton had the evidence of Iraq's involvement in the first bombing of the WTC, but hid it from the American people.
I think FReepers need to hammer away at that point in a highly visible way during this presidential campaign year.
We need to put Clinton and the DemocRATS on the defensive in a big way.
I propose that in all of our FReeps some of our signs should read something on the order of: "Clinton HID THE EVIDENCE from the American People that Iraq bombed the WTC". Make him prove he didn't. Maybe we could send a link to this thread to various media people who might have the guts to run with that idea. What do you think?
On 10-18-01 (a month after 9-11) Laurie Mylroie said [excerpted]:
" ...The reason that the Clinton administration did not want the evidence of Iraqi involvement coming out in the Trade Center bombing was because, in June of 1993, Clinton had attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. It was for the attempt to kill George Bush. But Clinton also believed that that attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters would take care of the bombing in New York, that it would deter Iraq from all future acts of terrorism.
"And by not telling the public what was suspected of happening -- that New York FBI really believed Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing -- Clinton avoided raising the possibility the public might demand that the United States do a lot more than just bomb one building. And Clinton didn't want to do more. Clinton wanted to focus on domestic politics, including health policy. .....
"... The Clinton administration's unwillingness to identify Iraq as the suspected sponsor of the Trade Center bombing was a terrible blunder. Not only did the 1993 attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters not deter Saddam forever; indeed, Saddam was back already in January of 1995 with that plot in the Philippines.
"It didn't deter Saddam forever, and equally important, it generated a false and fraudulent explanation for terrorism called "the loose network theory" -- that terrorism is no longer carried out by states, that the Trade Center bombing was a harbinger of a new terrorism carried out by individuals or loose networks without the support of state.
"And once that notion took hold, Saddam could easily play into it by working with Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden, putting them front and center, leaving a few bin Laden operatives to be arrested. That also played into this fraudulent theory and led directly to the events of September 11. ...
"Bin Laden also worked with Sudanese intelligence. That came out in the trial for the 1998 embassy bombing. Bin Laden works with the Taliban. He's not as important as we think. He does not work independently of a state, of a government. But because we have not seen the links, or perhaps not wanted to see the links between Osama bin Laden and various governments, we ourselves have attributed to him capabilities that he alone does not possess. ..."
If true changes the picture about Bin Laden and the current bombings.
Maybe that 17 page letter was a ploy to .....
From Publishers Weekly
American Enterprise Institute adjunct fellow Mylroie (coauthor, with Judith Miller, of Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf) here contends that the CIA and State Department, motivated by bureaucratic self-interest and a wrong-headed theory of terrorism that focuses on independent terrorist networks rather than terrorist states, have obstructed the investigation into the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Fortunately, President Bush is "an actual hero" who pushed ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite the intelligence bureaucrats' efforts to undermine him with nay-saying leaks. Mylroie's thesis hinges on her demonstration of a compelling case pointing to Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction and sponsorship of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, this mainly amounts to a rehash of the Bush Administration rationale for war that has generated so much skepticism. What new information she does offer is usually a matter of suppositions, probabilities and "suggestive leads." Particularly weak is her attempt to link Saddam to the 2001 anthrax attacks, which rests on a few cryptic Iraqi media statements and a process of elimination. As for the failure to find any WMDs in Iraq, she can only speculate that they were hidden, sent abroad or "destroyed in a final, cunning act of revenge." Ostensibly an expose of intelligence failures in the war on terrorism, the book itself offers mostly murky intelligence.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
As the subtitle suggests, Mylroie claims the CIA and the U.S. State Department (among other bureaucracies) systematically discredited vital intelligence about the threat of violence from Iraq and, in particular, about Saddam Hussein's own intentions. It seems, on the surface, an unusual claim, but the author, who advised Bill Clinton on Iraq during his 1992 presidential campaign, marshals a lot of persuasive evidence. She demonstrates how important proof of danger from Iraq was dismissed by the... read more
As the postwar debate continues, a leading expert reveals the obstacles that stood between the United States and the fall of Saddam Hussein -- many of them within the U.S. government itself Laurie Mylroie's previous books, the number one New York Times bestseller Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (coauthored with Judith Miller) and The War Against America, were influential in building the case against Iraq. Now Mylroie reveals the story behind the buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom -- a story known to few outside of Washington.
Combining important new research with an insider's grasp of Beltway politics, Mylroie describes how the CIA and the State Department have systematically discredited critical intelligence about Saddam's regime, including indisputable evidence of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. She reveals how major elements of the case against Iraq -- including information about possible links to al Qaeda and evidence of potential Iraqi involvement in the fall 2001 anthrax attacks -- were prematurely dismissed by these agencies for cynical reasons. Mylroie traces how the very idea of state-sponsored terrorism was pronounced dead after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, giving states like Iraq an open ing to underwrite terrorism without being detected. And she demonstrates that the war with Iraq was not only justifiable -- but the necessary and moral course of action.
Bush vs. the Beltway also includes an authoritative essay by Professor Robert F. Turner of the University of Virginia School of Law, who makes the case that -- based on not only standing U.N. resolutions but the totality of circumstances surrounding Saddam's regime -- the war was justified on both legal and moral grounds. As the world enters a new era in international relations, one in which the new realities of terror mingle deceptively with eternal truths about war, intelligence, tyranny, and evil, Bush vs. the Beltway offers sobering lessons in the realities of twenty-first-century conflict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.