Where is Binnie? Playing the guitar with Elvis? A BU prof takes a different look at this question.
Focusing on Osama and al Qaeda affirms a CIA axiom dating from the Cold War, an axiom challenged during the Reagan years but that has been U.S. policy since 1993, namely: terrorism is the work of "rogue individuals and groups" that operate despite state authority. According to this axiom, the likes of Osama run rings around the intelligence services of Arab states—just like the Cold War terrorists who came through Eastern Europe to bomb in Germany and Italy and to shoot Pope John Paul II supposedly acted despite Bulgarian intelligence, despite East Germany's Stasi, despite the KGB. This axiom is dear to many in the U.S. government because it leads logically to working with the countries whence terrorists come rather than to treating them as enemies.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
But what if terrorism were (as Thomas Friedman put it) "what states want to happen or let happen"? What if, in the real world, infiltrators from intelligence services—the professionals—use the amateur terrorists rather than the other way around? What is the logical consequence of noting the fact that the terrorist groups that make a difference on planet Earth—such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the PLO, Colombia's FARC—are extensions of, respectively, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Venezuela? It is the negation of the U.S. government's favorite axiom. It means that when George W. Bush spoke, and when Barack Obama speaks, of America being "at war" against "extremism" or "extremists" they are either being stupid or acting stupid to avoid dealing with the nasty fact that many governments wage indirect warfare.
"Wot", indeed.
Factor out Osama. Chances are, 9/11 still happens. Factor out al Qaeda too. Maybe 9/11 still happens. The other bombing plots sure happened without it. But if you factor out the KSM group, surely there is no 9/11, and without the KSM group, there is no way al Qaeda would have become a household word.
Hey, but KSM is at Gitmo. And, of course, Pepe wants him out, and free like a bird.
KSM and company may not have started their careers as agents of Iraqi intelligence, or they may have quit the Iraqis and worked for others, or maybe they just worked for themselves. But surely they were a body unto themselves. As such they fit Osama's description of those responsible for 9/11 as "individuals with their own motivation" far better than they fit the CIA's description of them as Osama's tools.
Hmmm... So wtf is really going on in this house of shadows? Who's controlling who? Ah, don't worry, says Pepe. They just play with Molotov cocktails.
The point is that our political leadership is too pussy.....Although "duh" still applies, natch.
Well, OK, maybe that's an obvious point -- but it's worth repeating, now and then. It tends to get lost in the background noise, otherwise.
How about Binnie? Is he still among us, or pushing the daisies from the root? I've been asking this question for about 7 years now. What are the odds you guys are offering that the CIA is wrong on this one?
Finally, what about KSM? Was he Binnie's underling (as claimed), or was Binnie just a figurehead for KSM, as Codevilla more-or-less implies?
I don't know.
I do think Bin Laden is dead. Which, if so, underscores the broadbased nature of Islam Militant. A single organization it is not. Just as neither Communism nor Fascism are single organizations.
But then this begs the question: why is the CIA so confident Binnie is up and kicking? I mean, there are some pretty some smart analysts at the Firm (with some exceptions -- think of Valerie Plame, every pinko's favorite spook). Do they have a mental block in this case, or blinkers, or what?
Post a Comment