2008 Woodie Awards
Iraqi War Discussion: Ray McGovern Shares His Political Perspective
Continuation from the Sandspur's March 11 issue...
Tom Trasente
Issue date: 3/25/05 Section: Life & Times
|
SANDSPUR: If we continue with the present course in Iraq, America could bleed and bankrupt itself to death. And if America were to pull out immediately it is possible that Iraq could fragment into civil war and replace Afghanistan as terrorist headquarters. Given these possibilities, what should America do now?
RAY MCGOVERN: There are no good options. Let's start that way. [What I'd] say is this, that to look at possibilities to revise our policy or our tactics in Iraq, one has to look at the original reasons for our going in there. Those original reasons were given as A) weapons of mass destruction, B) ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Both of those have shown to be false, the question is whether it was known that they were false.
I've already told you that the Estimates came eight months after the decision for war. The real reasons for the war were three; I use an acronym, O-I-L. O for oil, I for Israel, and L for the logistical base deemed necessary by the neocons running this policy, to exert the primary influence over the oil and that entire region to include not only Iraq, but Saudi Arabia, and if they could get away with it, Iran.
Those were the objectives, and I can prove that if you like, but if I am correct in that, then the most important thing, the sine qua non, for a change in course is; those objectives have to be given up as, depending on who you are, as unachievable, as immoral, as just dumb.
SANDSPUR: So those three reasons you just gave, at this point, you feel are not possible to be fulfilled?
RAY MCGOVERN: No. And the reason is, quite crassly, is that there are 1.3 billion Islamic people and they are not going to let us do it. The borders are porous, we can build up to 500,000 troops as we did in Vietnam and we will not prevail. And the sooner that's recognized, the better.
And when people say 'We'll bid for the oil like everybody else, and we won't insist on these 14 permanent military bases that we're putting in Iraq, and we won't leave Israel in the lurch, but lets remember Israel has some 350 nuclear weapons at its beck and call. So it's not defenseless.' And as soon as we are able to do that, we'll be able to say 'United Nations we're serious about it now, we're not going to try to dominate that whole part of the world with our military forces. Please come in and help us.'
And only then will the UN and Western Europe say 'Ok, we'll help bail you out of the situation.' Then it will be possible.
SANDSPUR: So you think that Europe and the UN, given certain requirements, would step in and provide assistance?
RAY MCGOVERN: I'm convinced they would. That's their job, that's what they do well, helping to establish order, and peacekeeping and so forth in countries that need it.
SANDSPUR: You think the Europeans would also be ok with that?
RAY MCGOVERN: The sine qua non, the precondition, would be that the US would have to say, 'We're off the campaign to dominate that whole area. We need help in extracting ourselves.' Once the US truly recognized that, and once we went to the Europeans and made a convincing case that we're going to change our ways, then I'm convinced that there would be much more help available.
And not only from the Europeans; we've got the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the Egyptians would be able to contribute some troops to peacekeeping. I'm not suggesting it would easy, it would be very difficult, but it's possible, and all I'm saying is that it's the best approach that I can conceive of.
SANDSPUR: It was widely reported that the White House felt the CIA was out to get the Bush Administration in the months before the election with embarrassing leaks and reports, any comment on this?
RAY MCGOVERN: Those reports went back several months, they were National Intelligence Estimates that people had access to widely. They are not heavily classified. Laying that at the doorstep of CIA analysts or whoever, is very disingenuous. It wasn't that at all.
My best information was that the leaks came from somewhere in the State Department. It's not necessary to blame the CIA simply because the CIA is the one who puts the whole thing together, many people are involved. The idea that CIA would leak this to embarrass the administration is really pretty preposterous.
Because that's not what we do, that's not what we did. It just strains credulity beyond the breaking point, as far as I'm concerned.
SANDSPUR: Do you think America is winning or losing the war on terror?
RAY MCGOVERN: Losing.
SANDSPUR: How badly?
RAY MCGOVERN: Well, who am I? I look to the real experts. I knew Mike Scheuer when he was a young analyst when he first came on to the agency. We have an expression in Washington, when somebody's has followed an area incredibly closely for many years, we say that person has his nose rubbed in it. And Mike Scheuer has his nose rubbed in al Qaeda, terrorism, and what it would take to defeat it.
His book is excellent, it's called "Imperial Hubris." It's a very good example of what kinds of analysis the CIA used to do, in terms of looking at all sources. And curiously enough, his information is based 90% on open sources, the 10% that he got from other sources can be easily disguised in his judgments, but he is very mildly dependent on that extra information.
When he says we're losing the war against terrorism, and I look at the empirical evidence, I am hard pressed to find anything that would lead me to disagree with him.
SANDSPUR: How do you respond that if you give bin Laden what he wants, which would be a different policy, you'll just encourage attacks?
RAY MCGOVERN: This really goes back to one of my major points here. Have you read bin Ladens most recent statement? We need to do that because he is very direct. That's the benefit of reading a book like Scheuer's. You'll see what can be gleaned from these public statements.
Bin Laden says in his most recent thing, exactly right before the elections. What you need to do is read the full text, and the only way you get that is from al Jazeera. He said, 'I can't believe you all. You're swatting at flies, and you're unwilling to address the core question of why we did it. You just won't address that. I've told you time and time again, that's it going to happen again unless you address the main question.
Now what is the main question? The main question, is the Palestinian?Isreali problem where you have a one sided approach you US people, and the propping up of these dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and of course what you've done in Iraq. Now if you look at that, and try to fix that, then you won't be hit again; but if you don't, you're going to be hit again.' He says it pretty much in those blunt terms. People tend to dismiss such statements as propaganda, and that's a big big mistake.
The 9/11 Commission in its exhaustive report treats just about every subject. But somebody said, 'If our job is to look at what happened on 9/11, lets ask somebody why they did it. We have Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, we caught him, lets ask him, he is the mastermind, he is the one who went to Osama bin Laden and sold the whole project, and got approval, and implanted the project.' You have to read the 9/11 Commission report very carefully because it is only on one very small paragraph on page 149 or something like that. What did he answer? 'I did it because of my incredible hatred for your one sided support for Israeli oppression of my Palestinian brothers.'
And then the paragraph goes on, 'This is exactly what Ramsey Yusef, who happens to be Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's nephew, said after he was sentenced to 240 years in US prison after he tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.' And using Goggle I find that Ramsey Yusef says, 'I did it because of my extreme hatred for your oppression, your support for Israeli aggression against my Palestinian brothers and sisters.'
There is no reason for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, he's in custody, they got him, he's got not much prospect of any further life, and the same with Ramsey Yusef. There is no reason for them to dissimulate anymore. That's what they say, that's what Osama bin Laden says. Hello folks, maybe we ought to take a look at that.
The 9/11 Commission, to its credit, does say, why the US has such a black name in the Arab world. And then some brave soul, probably some young staffer says 'Our policy has something to do with our standing in the Arab world. And right or wrong, the Arabs feel very strongly about our one sided support for Israel.' And then it goes on to talk about instituting more radio and TV programs.
What you have to do is look really carefully, but some brave soul said we ought to take a look at the policy, because the policy is responsible, in large measure, for "why they hate us." It's not our democracy, it's not our freedoms, if you believe that then I have a bridge up in Brooklyn that I'd very much like to sell you, it's not that at all, it's our policy.