an interesting perspective on the War on Terror

[Steve Wood]

In Conversation with George Friedman

Author of

AMERICA'S SECRET WAR

INSIDE THE HIDDEN WORLDWIDE

STRUGGLE BETWEEN AMERICA

AND ITS ENEMIES



Q. What is the main point of your book?



A. The United States is winning the war that began on September 11, 2001. At this point, Al Qaeda and the Islamist extremists are on the ropes.



Q. How can you say that when warnings of terror are everywhere and the situation in Iraq looks so grim?



A. We have to remember the goal of Al Qaeda is to create an uprising in the Islamic world and overthrow what they consider to be corrupt, secular Islamic governments. Not a single Islamic government has fallen or sided with Al Qaeda. In fact, almost all are actively cooperating with the United States in fighting Al Qaeda.



Q. But the situation is still so dangerous.



A. I am not saying that the war is won. I am saying that the United States is winning. Al Qaeda doesn't intend to lose. It intends to reverse the trend. So, the situation is extremely dangerous. But the trajectory favors the United States.



Q. How has the United States done this?



A. By creating a situation in which it has proven too dangerous for Islamic governments to work with Al Qaeda or remain neutral. A range of actions has forced these governments to confront Al Qaeda. The result has been increased instability in many countries, such as Saudi Arabia-the more pressure there is, the more instability.



Q. Doesn't this risk resentment among the Islamic masses?



A. The resentment against the United States is enormous. Nothing can be done about anti-American feeling in the Islamic world beyond shifting the burden of containment to local governments.



Q. You must think that George W. Bush has done a good job.



A. The Bush Administration played a bad hand moderately well. But it still committed enormous errors, some of which are threatening the success of the war.



Q. What are some of these errors?



A. The failure to force the military and intelligence communities to go to wartime footing immediately after September 11th has left both organizations undermanned and in disarray. Not a single major reform of the military or intelligence structure has taken place since the war began. This has resulted in both military and intelligence failures that leave the U.S. open to major reversals. Bush and his team appear to have been paralyzed by events.



Q. Was the invasion of Iraq one of these errors?



A. Lying about why we were invading Iraq was a massive error. The invasion itself helped generate the forces that have Al Qaeda on the defensive now. Iraq is the most strategic country in the Middle East and following the invasion of Iraq, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran began to change their policies to support the U.S. against Al Qaeda. The invasion was a good idea and the administration had good reasons for doing it. But they had nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaeda.



Q. Why did we go into Iraq?



A. We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.



Q. What is the situation in Iraq now?



A. The situation is manageable even though violence will continue for years. Like Northern Ireland, it will be a generation before it calms down. At the same time, it doesn't effect the strategic situation.



Q. What happens next?



A. Al Qaeda has got to try to get some points on the board. If it doesn't, its credibility in the Islamic world will dissipate. If it can, it will attack. The United States is now engaged in a global counter-offensive designed to block them. It's not clear what will happen. In addition, Al Qaeda will try to bring down Saudi Arabia.



Q. What will the United States do?



A. It will play defense against Al Qaeda in the United States and Saudi Arabia. It will threaten Iran with war if Iran aids Al Qaeda. Most important, the United States will have to invade northwestern Pakistan. There are plans for this already. In addition, if Pakistan collapses due to an invasion, the United States and India will have to jointly occupy Pakistan. The end game is in Pakistan.



Q. Why are we going into Pakistan?



A. Stratfor said in December 2003 that the campaign is being planned. In February 2004 a spokesman for the Pentagon said they were going in to Pakistan. Since then we have been carrying out small scale incursions for months. The war cannot end until the command cell of Al Qaeda is destroyed and that is located in Northwestern Pakistan, but it has been delayed by manpower shortages.



Q. Is victory for the United States guaranteed?



A. Not at all. Japan was winning World War II, until the United States fought back. Al Qaeda struck the first blow, and the United States has counter-attacked successfully. Al Qaeda will try to recover.



Q. Can it recover?



A. Yes, but in my view, Al Qaeda is far more likely to lose than to win.



Q. If the Bush adminstration mishandled things so badly, how can victory be possible?



A. The United States had a lot more room for error than Al Qaeda did. When you are big and powerful, you can afford mistakes.

[CaPPY]

I think it was Sen. Biden who said that if we had frozen the Saudi's assets after the Gulf War, we would have been able to limit Al Qaeda's powers. And they wouldn't have been the threat that they now are. There were some who were bitching about terrorist funding in 92-93...even way before then.

It always leads back to $$. Choke off the $$ supply and it weakens the grip of any group or faction.

I remember a show on cable around '94-'95 that was a documentary. It showed a meeting of those sympathetic to terrorists (notice I didn't say towel heads), preaching terrorist activities against the US. It was in an auditorium in NEBRASKA OR IOWA!!!!

That was a clear message to start to beef up our borders and internal security. Maybe?

But, usually, nothing is done to avert a tragedy. Instead it's: let's pocket those funds until something happens, then we'll do a cleanup. That was always the message of the corporations that I worked for in the past.

I always spent money on preventive maintenance...needless to say I wasn't the most popular guy around. The CEO's always freaked...all they could see was the bottom line...$$

[Zap]

Q. Why did we go into Iraq? A. We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda.

That's why we don't have "journalists" in positions of power. I love all these theories they come up with.

That's laughable.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was seen as a "very likely" potential problem, and after September 11, "very likely" potential problems were going to be faced before they became "certain" problems.

Better that Friedman team up with Oliver Stone and go look for the "real" killer of JFK.

[forzfed]

West Virginians terrorize me!

[Steve Wood]

I have no doubt that the Saudis allowed money to go to Bin Laden as they would rather he was outside causing problems rather than at home stirring up the Wahabis against the royal family...or even worse, siding with some members of the royal family who are not happy with their piece of the rock.

We shoulda jerked them up years ago and made it clear that we were willing to sacrifice some cheap oil and leave them to their own just desserts if they did not give us the assistance we needed.

Clinton blew it worse when he did not take him when he had the opportunity than Bush did when the special forces failed to catch him in Afghanistan.

[Zap]

I have no doubts about the Saudis. A corrupt, crooked regime, no doubt. But, we invaded Iraq because of Saddam Hussein. All you have to do is look as his history...he was a serious threat. We needed or had no "hidden agenda" in order to justify his deletion.

Sometimes, colonial rule sounds like a good idea to me.

[Steve Wood]

No where, O Reading Challenged One, have I taken a position on Iraq. I merely posted an interview given by the author of the book.

On the other hand, I consider the Saudis as the culprits that allowed this to get out out hand. I am for a colony myself.

Now, go on out and go to your Kerry rally!

[Nasty Wendy]

Originally posted by Zap

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was seen as a "very likely" potential problem, and after September 11, "very likely" potential problems were going to be faced before they became "certain" problems.

I thought we invaded Iraq to find their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Zap]

Originally posted by Nasty Wendy
I thought ....

I stopped reading at that point, because I knew you were making a bogus point.

[Zap]

Originally posted by Steve Wood
No where, O Reading Challenged One, have I taken a position on Iraq. I merely posted an interview given by the author of the book.

On the other hand, I consider the Saudis as the culprits that allowed this to get out out hand. I am for a colony myself.

Now, go on out and go to your Kerry rally!

Nowhere (one word, used correctly by me), did I say you did. I am merely mocking the ludicrous nature of that portion of the interview that you saw fit to promote. I dispute the theory as Michael Moore-like in its nature, and, therefore, useless at best, and slanderous at worst. Tripe. Gossip. Drivel.


As for the Kerry rally, I'm am not the registered Democrat in this exchange! I would rather spend a weekend with Nasty Wendy in the Baghdad Hilton than register as a Democrat.

Demacommie!

[Steve Wood]

I prefer DemmyMoore to your Michael! Nothing ludicrous about the Saudis....they been paying OBL to stay away for years...

We shoulda took Iraq, nuked Iran, and occupied Saudi..then we could name the price for oil that the French and liberals would have to pay.

[Zap]

I would rather pay the American farmers with tax money and burn the damn food we send to various places across the world (like North Korea )