Geral
A CIA não tem só agentes sem escrúpulos e sem cérebro que executam raptos e entregam a tortura e prisões de outros, pessoas que consideram suspeitas de terrorismo. Tem alguns que pensam - e pensam bem, mesmo que americano-centricamente. Aliás, boa parte dos agentes da CIA são pagos para pensar, analisar, decifrar, explicar. Alguns desses até têm escrúpulos e, indignados com o comportamento e a ineficácia da Administração Bush, estão a ser preciosas fontes de informação de todas as investigações em curso sobre as várias desastrosas vertentes da "guerra contra o terrorismo" (por isso, que se cuidem governos e funcionários que julgam poder manter os chamados "voos da CIA" debaixo da carpete...).
Um destes é Michael Scheuer, que foi agente da CIA durante 22 anos antes de se demitir em 2004, quando era chefe no Centro de Contra-terrorismo e especializado em ...bin Laden. Vale a pena ler a entrevista que dá à revista "Harper's Magazine", em 23 de Agosto, intitulada "Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security"
Transcrevo extractos:
1.We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. (...) But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. (...) In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term "Islamofascism" - but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
(...)
4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
It broke the back of our counterterrorism program. Iraq was the perfect execution of a war that demanded jihad to oppose it. You had an infidel power invading and occupying a Muslim country and it was perceived to be unprovoked. Many senior Western officials said that bin Laden was not a scholar and couldn't declare a jihad but other Muslim clerics did. So that religious question was erased.
Secondly, Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. (...) Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.
(...)
6. Has the war in Lebanon also been a plus for the jihadists?
Yes. The Israel-Hezbollah battle validates bin Laden. It showed that the Arab regimes are useless, that they can't protect their own nationals, and that they are apostate regimes that are creatures of the infidels. It also showed that the Americans will let Israel do whatever it wants. It was clear from the way the West reacted that it would let Israel take its best shot before it tried diplomacy. (...)The most salient point it showed for Islamists is that Muslim blood is cheap. Israel said it went to war to get back its captured soldiers. The price was the gutting of Lebanon. Olmert said that Israel would fight until it got its soldiers back and until Hezbollah was disarmed. Neither happened. No matter how you spin it, this will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then there have been the two intifadas, and now this. The idea of Israel being militarily omnipotent is fading.
7. And finally, an extra question - what needs to be done? (..) the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. (...)
At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny - the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.
What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil. What benefit do we get by letting China commit genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs? What do we get out of supporting Putin in Chechnya? He may need to do it to maintain his country, but we don't need to support what looks like a rape, pillage, and kill campaign against Muslims. The other area is Israel and Palestine. We're not going to abandon the Israelis but we need to reestablish the relationship so it looks like we're the great power and they're our ally, and not the other way around. We need to create a situation where moderate Muslims can express support for the United States without being laughed off the block.
- Porque Falham Os Generais Em Israel?
Vale a pena ler no www.antiwar.com o artigo de 12/8/06 do israelita URI AVNER "The Buck Stops Where?" Não resisto a reproduzir extractos: «Today the war entered its fifth week. Hard to believe: our mighty army has now been fighting for 29 days against...
- ...e Os Mais Neo-cons Atiram-se A Condi Rice...
Ainda do artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control",de Jim Lobe: (...) The one, at least partial, exception has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose State Department, a bastion of realism, has been under almost constant attack since the outset...
- O "novo" Médio Oriente Desatina...
Leia-se o artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control, de Jim Lobe (Editor-chefe do Bureau de Washington do Inter Press Service), in TomPaine.com, de 11.8.06 "Alarms are definitely on the rise here. And it's not just because the British police arrested...
- Muçulmanos Americanos Criticam Bush...
Vale a pena ler o «take» da Reuters de 11.8.06: «US Muslims Bristle at Bush Remarks US Muslim groups have criticised US President George W Bush for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could...
- O Império Da Mentira
Está no site da CBS uma súmula da última edição do programa “60 minutos”, que é retransmitido em Portugal pela SIC Notícias. Trata-se da entrevista com Charles Clark, que foi conselheiro de George Bush sobre terrorismo, onde aliás esclarece...
Geral
Um olhar da CIA sobre o legado de Bush
A CIA não tem só agentes sem escrúpulos e sem cérebro que executam raptos e entregam a tortura e prisões de outros, pessoas que consideram suspeitas de terrorismo. Tem alguns que pensam - e pensam bem, mesmo que americano-centricamente. Aliás, boa parte dos agentes da CIA são pagos para pensar, analisar, decifrar, explicar. Alguns desses até têm escrúpulos e, indignados com o comportamento e a ineficácia da Administração Bush, estão a ser preciosas fontes de informação de todas as investigações em curso sobre as várias desastrosas vertentes da "guerra contra o terrorismo" (por isso, que se cuidem governos e funcionários que julgam poder manter os chamados "voos da CIA" debaixo da carpete...).
Um destes é Michael Scheuer, que foi agente da CIA durante 22 anos antes de se demitir em 2004, quando era chefe no Centro de Contra-terrorismo e especializado em ...bin Laden. Vale a pena ler a entrevista que dá à revista "Harper's Magazine", em 23 de Agosto, intitulada "Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security"
Transcrevo extractos:
1.We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. (...) But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. (...) In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term "Islamofascism" - but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
(...)
4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
It broke the back of our counterterrorism program. Iraq was the perfect execution of a war that demanded jihad to oppose it. You had an infidel power invading and occupying a Muslim country and it was perceived to be unprovoked. Many senior Western officials said that bin Laden was not a scholar and couldn't declare a jihad but other Muslim clerics did. So that religious question was erased.
Secondly, Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. (...) Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.
(...)
6. Has the war in Lebanon also been a plus for the jihadists?
Yes. The Israel-Hezbollah battle validates bin Laden. It showed that the Arab regimes are useless, that they can't protect their own nationals, and that they are apostate regimes that are creatures of the infidels. It also showed that the Americans will let Israel do whatever it wants. It was clear from the way the West reacted that it would let Israel take its best shot before it tried diplomacy. (...)The most salient point it showed for Islamists is that Muslim blood is cheap. Israel said it went to war to get back its captured soldiers. The price was the gutting of Lebanon. Olmert said that Israel would fight until it got its soldiers back and until Hezbollah was disarmed. Neither happened. No matter how you spin it, this will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then there have been the two intifadas, and now this. The idea of Israel being militarily omnipotent is fading.
7. And finally, an extra question - what needs to be done? (..) the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. (...)
At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny - the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.
What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil. What benefit do we get by letting China commit genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs? What do we get out of supporting Putin in Chechnya? He may need to do it to maintain his country, but we don't need to support what looks like a rape, pillage, and kill campaign against Muslims. The other area is Israel and Palestine. We're not going to abandon the Israelis but we need to reestablish the relationship so it looks like we're the great power and they're our ally, and not the other way around. We need to create a situation where moderate Muslims can express support for the United States without being laughed off the block.
- Porque Falham Os Generais Em Israel?
Vale a pena ler no www.antiwar.com o artigo de 12/8/06 do israelita URI AVNER "The Buck Stops Where?" Não resisto a reproduzir extractos: «Today the war entered its fifth week. Hard to believe: our mighty army has now been fighting for 29 days against...
- ...e Os Mais Neo-cons Atiram-se A Condi Rice...
Ainda do artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control",de Jim Lobe: (...) The one, at least partial, exception has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose State Department, a bastion of realism, has been under almost constant attack since the outset...
- O "novo" Médio Oriente Desatina...
Leia-se o artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control, de Jim Lobe (Editor-chefe do Bureau de Washington do Inter Press Service), in TomPaine.com, de 11.8.06 "Alarms are definitely on the rise here. And it's not just because the British police arrested...
- Muçulmanos Americanos Criticam Bush...
Vale a pena ler o «take» da Reuters de 11.8.06: «US Muslims Bristle at Bush Remarks US Muslim groups have criticised US President George W Bush for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could...
- O Império Da Mentira
Está no site da CBS uma súmula da última edição do programa “60 minutos”, que é retransmitido em Portugal pela SIC Notícias. Trata-se da entrevista com Charles Clark, que foi conselheiro de George Bush sobre terrorismo, onde aliás esclarece...