[iwar] [fc:USA.is.playing.into.bin.Laden's.hands]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-19 21:22:14


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2102-1000959735-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29649 invoked by uid 510); 20 Sep 2001 04:22:39 -0000
Received: from n5.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.55) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 04:22:39 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2102-1000959735-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2001 04:22:16 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 04:22:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 77918 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 04:22:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 04:22:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 04:22:15 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id VAA13001 for iwar@onelist.com; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:22:14 -0700
Message-Id: <200109200422.VAA13001@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:USA.is.playing.into.bin.Laden's.hands]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

USA is playing into bin Laden's hands

By Thomas C Greene in Washington

Posted: 20/09/2001 at 00:08 GMT

There are a number of new tragedies the USA may invite in its response
to last week's suicide hijackings in New York and Washington, the most
ironic of which would be to give Osama bin Laden exactly what he wants. 

The response now has a name.  It's being called 'Operation Infinite
Justice'.  It promises to be a broad-based, long-term crusade against
terrorism worldwide.  The codename suggests both religious fervor and an
eternal struggle, as if bin Laden himself had picked it. 

As I pointed out in a recent rant, among the likely negative
consequences are getting inextricably stuck in an endless, ineffective
crusade against world terrorism ('mission creep' as it was called in the
Vietnam-era), and igniting conflicts throughout the Islamic world. 

A number of readers took issue with my analogy between Afghanistan and
Vietnam, but I maintain it's a fair one.  It won't be superpower vs
superpower by proxy as it was back then, but the Taliban, if attacked,
will receive a great deal of cash and weapons through back channels. 
Remember, Afghanistan has a well-developed smuggling infrastructure due
to heavy trafficking in opium. 

Assistance to the Taliban may come from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya,
factions in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.  The jihad
support-network exists, possesses significant economic and military
resources, and is eager to help. 

Jihad Let's examine what effect the proposed US crusade might have on
existing internal conflicts within the Islamic world.  Bin Laden, it's
clear to me, desperately desires a holy war.  He despises the West and
all Islamic states with ties to the West.  He denounces his homeland of
Saudi Arabia as a puppet regime and a disgrace to Islam. 

Nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to see the entire
region consumed in the flames of religious righteousness against the
West and against West-leaning Muslim factions and governments.  Bin
Laden, compelled by what can only be described as a messiah complex, is
straining to bring this all to a head.  He would proudly lead Muslim
extremists on a catastrophic jihad against these 'corrupt' states, these
collaborators with the West. 

If he is the one responsible for last week's suicide attacks, then we
can be sure his ultimate goal was to bring the US and her allies to his
doorstep in order to exploit the conflicts this will create between
Islamic states, and within them as well.  Look for a refugee crisis of
Biblical proportions if the Bush administration really means what it
says, and look for Islamic extremists to infiltrate the refugee camps
soon to be blossoming all over the region. 

Look for rival nations to exploit accusations of supporting terrorism as
a pretext to do battle.  Look for increasing intra-national conflicts,
too -- for growing factionalism, and for civil wars. 

Nukes? Let's consider just one of many potential flash points: Pakistan. 
Its military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, has already taken to the airwaves
and come out in favor of assisting the US, partly to avoid interference
from India, and partly to avoid attack by the West.  He urged his people
to consider that, given these circumstances, supporting the Taliban
would only be self-destructive. 

He's probably right; but a large number of Pakistanis will still be
vehemently opposed to collaborating with infidels.  There is
considerable grassroots support for the Taliban throughout Pakistan --
and if some of those supporters are caught smuggling arms or cash to
Afghanistan, how will Musharraf respond?

The collision of internal and external pressures on his government may
be too much to bear.  A Pakistani civil war is a real possibility. 

And how might India exploit that? Remember that Pakistan is a nuclear
power, and that India would very much like to change that.  Could a
civil war in Pakistan give the Indians a pretext to get involved? You
bet it could; they'll cry national interest -- 'nukes may fall into the
hands of Islamic extremists' -- and they'll make a preemptive strike. 
Possibly even a nuclear one if things really get out of hand. 

And who, unique among the world's occupants, would find that a
satisfying development? Osama bin Laden, that's who. 

And if India uses, or seriously threatens to use, nukes, what will China
do? You see where this could lead, and thus far we've followed only a
single thread of 'what's the worst that could happen'. 

"Intelligence" The US has long been relying on intelligence from allies
in the Middle East.  These include such overtly self-interested states
as Saudi Arabia and Israel. 

The Saudis are especially eager to paint bin Laden as the world's chief
Satanic force.  He's been a painful thorn in their sides for decades. 

After the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996, the Saudi government
extracted confessions from the perpetrators, forced them to announce on
national television that Osama bin Laden was their mastermind and
patron, and then executed each one before US investigators could
question them.  Trust us, the Saudis said.  We know who your monster is. 

Israel, which greatly prefers an Arab Satan, has fingered Saddam
Hussein.  Israeli intelligence has leaked two names, Imad Mughniyeh and
Ayman Al Zawahiri, both with ties to Iraq.  Trust us, they're saying. 
We know who your monster is. 

Over the next several months, US agencies will be drowning in military
intelligence cheerfully proffered by governments and organizations
wishing to exploit American naïveté in order to advance their own
political and religious agendas. 

Sorting through this vast slush pile of self-serving propaganda for the
nuggets of truth buried within will be the greatest initial challenge
the US faces. 

Friendly advice Hollywood has done a stunning job of re-writing American
military history along impossibly heroic -- even messianic -- lines. 
The historic record tells a vastly different story. 

From blundering into a mere civil war in Korea and getting 35,000
Americans killed in exchange for absolutely nothing (and courting a
full-scale war with China); to getting sucked into a mere civil war in
Vietnam and losing more than 50,000 for absolutely nothing (and courting
a full-scale war with Russia); to Desert Storm which outraged Muslim
conservatives and yet left the enemy government in power (if you're
going to break the eggs, then make the damned omelet); to the
intervention in Kosovo which might end up destabilizing the Balkans'
shaky governments (or not -- we may yet get away with that one). 

There were some minor interventions worth recalling: the Bay of Pigs;
Carter's rescue mission in Iran; Reagan's bombing in Libya; the Contra
debacle; Grenada (what the hell was that?); Somalia, where we went from
a welcome police force guarding food distribution to a despised,
high-handed interventionist overnight; capturing Noriega, which seems so
far to have been a success; Haiti, which also seems to have gone fairly
well; and the bombing in the Sudan, which appears to have been a
terrible blunder based, Clinton-administration security advisor Sandy
Berger assured us, on incontrovertible intelligence (undoubtedly
proffered from outside). 

Much of what went wrong in all these cases is the result, in part, of
the US accepting intelligence from so-called allies with conflicting
interests.  The US was of course also powerfully influenced by political
and international pressures in each instance. 

Those powerful influences are now in effect, and can't be called back. 
But the enduring, and I have to confess, endearing, American tendency to
trust allies and credit them with being more than mere opportunists has
got to be overcome. 

Europe by and large, Russia, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
India -- all have indicated support for a comprehensive assault on
terrorist organizations and their state sponsors, in which the USA will
do most of the heavy lifting and take most of the blame if it all goes
horribly wrong.  But all have their own particular interests in this
game, which may or may not correspond to American interests, and, more
importantly, to world interests, chief among which has got to be a
reduction, not an escalation, of international and intra-national
violence.  If history is any guide, we can rate the possibility of the
US being led into a military and political quagmire as quite high. 

KISS For that reason I believe the US response should be greatly
narrowed, and kept as close to a law-enforcement operation as possible. 
The Bush administration should stop deluding itself, and us, by claiming
to be able to eradicate terrorism. 

Instead, keep it simple.  Get proof of who's guilty firsthand; set
clear, realistic objectives and a clear exit strategy.  This 'war on
terrorism' concept now coming out of Washington smacks of endless
meddling abroad and a permanent crippling of civil liberties.  This is
in no one's interest. 

Riding on the powerful rhetoric of the slaughter of innocents, the Bush
administration now talks comfortably about prosecuting war upon a
faceless, hidden enemy dispersed throughout the world.  Besides the
obvious consequence of further alienating the USA from the international
mainstream, I see in America's future a pork-lined securocratic rat hole
from which we might never emerge. 

Instead, let's do a thorough investigation, use diplomatic pressure
wherever possible and military intervention only insofar as it's
necessary, and bring those responsible to justice Nuremberg-style. 

Otherwise, we play right into Osama bin Laden's hands.  If we allow the
Bush administration to persuade us that it actually can, as it says,
'rid the world of terrorism', we may ignite a catastrophic religious war
which could leave vast swaths of the Middle East or southern Asia in
conditions similar to those characterizing Afghanistan today. 

To bin Laden, such an outcome would be a sweet victory.  I for one would
sooner disappoint him.  ®


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Secure corporate intranets? Authenticate your Web sites? Whatever
security your site needs, you'll find the perfect solution here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/wOMkGD/Q56CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:46 PDT