Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Don’t Ignore the Experts

The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) recently retired top expert on radical Islamists has strongly denounced the conduct of U.S. President...

The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) recently retired top expert on radical Islamists has strongly denounced the conduct of U.S. President George W. Bush’s global war on terrorism and the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, which he said is “contributing to the violence.”

In an interview published last week by the online edition of Harper’s Magazine, Emile Nakhleh, who retired at the end of June as director of the agency’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, said that the Bush administration’s tactics had “lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world” and its Middle East democratization program “has all but disappeared, except for official rhetoric.”

Nakhleh, who taught Mideast politics for 25 years before working for the CIA, also called for Washington to “begin to explore creative ways to engage Iran and bring Iran and Shiite politics to the forefront of our policy in the region.”

“The growing influence of Hezbollah, and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, across the region and within the Sunni street, and the growing regional influence and reach of Iran, are two new realities that we should recognize and engage,” he told Harper‘s Washington editor Ken Silverstein.

The interview, Nakhleh’s first since his retirement, echoed the views of a number of former intelligence officials and career diplomats who have criticized the administration for ignoring their analyses of the dynamics of Mideast politics, particularly their warnings of the challenges Washington would face if it invaded Iraq.

Last February, for example, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community’s top Mideast analyst from 2000 until his retirement in late 2005, disclosed in Foreign Affairs magazine that the community had warned policymakers before the Iraq invasion that a war and occupation would “boost political Islam and increase sympathy for terrorists’ objectives” and that a “deeply divided Iraqi society” would likely erupt into violent conflict unless the occupation authority “established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam [Hussein].”

Pillar, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency’s former top Mideast analyst, Pat Lang, also accused the administration of distorting and politicizing intelligence in order to build its case for going to war. In Pillar’s words, “The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made.”

The most flagrant example of such manipulation was the administration’s efforts, eagerly promoted by right-leaning media, such as the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Weekly Standard, to establish a link between Hussein and al-Qaida-a link that, according to the conclusions of a report released earlier this month by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, never existed.

In his Harper‘s interview, Nakhleh, the author of more than half a dozen books on Mideast politics and strategy, also denounced these efforts, stressing that the intelligence community found “no evidence that there was a Saddam-[Osama] bin Laden axis.”

“The source for much of the information of that sort was [Iraqi expatriate Ahmed] Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, and their positions jibed with the positions of those in the administration who wanted to wage war in Iraq- [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Douglas] Feith, people in the vice president’s office. So [the administration] relied heavily on that reporting, but there was never any evidence to support that link,” Nakhleh said.

Nakhleh also stressed that the intelligence community had warned before the invasion that “just because the Iraqis hated Saddam, that didn’t mean they would like our occupation.”

“Iraq was more complex than just Saddam. We should have learned from the experience of the British in the 1920s, when modern Iraq was created-namely, that bringing in outside leaders would not work,” he said. “People expressed views about the need to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, about the potential for sectarian violence and the rise of militias, about the fact that the Shiites would want to rise politically. These were not minority views in the intelligence community, but the administration ended up listening to other voices. The focus was on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, and after that everything would be fine and dandy.”

As for what Washington can do to clean up its mess in Iraq, Nakhleh echoed some of the administration’s strongest critics, such as former National Security Agency director Gen. William Odom and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), although he did not explicitly endorse an immediate withdrawal or redeployment.

“I have come to believe that our presence is part of the problem and that we should begin to seriously devise an exit strategy,” he said. “There’s a civil war in Iraq, and our presence is contributing to the violence. We’ve become a lightning rod-we’re not restricting the violence, we’re contributing to it. Iraq has galvanized jihadists; our presence is what is attracting them. We need to get out of there.”

As to the future, “the only question is whether Iraq will become a haven for sectarianism, or follow either the Iranian model or the standard Arab authoritarian model,” Nakhleh said. “The once-touted model of a secular, democratic Iraq is all but forgotten. This casts a dark shadow on American efforts to spread democracy in the region.”

Citing the treatment of detainees in Iraq and the global antiterrorism effort and the administration’s continuing efforts to get legislation that would permit holding suspects indefinitely, Nakhleh argued that Bush’s pro-democracy rhetoric-most recently offered at the UN General Assembly on September 19-was hypocritical.

“The Islamic world says, ‘You talk about human rights, but you’re holding people without charging them.’ The Islamic world has always viewed the war on terror as a war on Islam, and we have not been able to disabuse them of that notion. Because of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other abuses, we have lost on the concepts of justice, fairness, and the rule of law . That’s very serious, and that’s where I see the danger in the years ahead.”

Unlike some of his former colleagues, Nakhleh expressed support for democratization in the Islamic world, stressing that there was nothing in Islam that was inconsistent with the democratic process and that even avowedly Islamist parties, such as Hamas, are not “necessarily interested in creating Sharia societies.”

“Political Islam is not a threat-the threat is if people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy and opt for violence. There is real danger from a few terrorists, and we should go after them, but the longer-term threat is that people opt out of the system. We need to not only speak out in favor of democracy and political reform, but also act on that as well,” Nakhleh said.

Jim Lobe is a Right Web contributing writer and Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service, which published an earlier version of this article.

 

Citations

Jim Lobe, "Don't Ignore the Experts," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, September 26, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share