Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Wrong Man for the Job
It was early in October 2001, and I had been invited to New York City on behalf of The History Channel for a show in which I was to discuss the situation in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. I was pitted against a seasoned American diplomat who had made his reputation negotiating peace accords in difficult corners of the world. I felt a little out of place, since my area of expertise was arms control and disarmament, and specifically how arms control was being implemented in Iraq. I had written a few scholarly articles about Afghan-Soviet relations, with a focus on the ethnic and tribal aspects of Afghan politics, and in the mid-1980s I had been an analyst with the Marine Corps component of the rapid deployment force, following very closely the Soviet war against the Afghan mujahedeen, so I wasn't totally out of my element.
I fully expected to play second fiddle to the veteran diplomat, and appreciated the opportunity to hear his insights into what clearly was a very difficult situation facing the Bush administration. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization had used their status as guests of the Taliban government of Afghanistan to formulate and implement their terrorist attacks against the United States. The question confronting the Bush administration was how best to respond. I had spent some time thinking over the problem and came down firmly against the idea of direct military intervention. History had shown that, since the time of Alexander the Great through the Soviet invasion and occupation, outside forces had fared poorly when they tried to impose their will on the diverse grouping of tribes and ethnic groups that made up Afghanistan.
Our fight, in any case, wasn't against the people of Afghanistan. To a certain extent, it wasn't even against the Taliban, since it was al-Qaida, not the Taliban, that had attacked us. Some, including leaders of the Bush administration, were making the case that the Taliban was directly implicated in the attacks since it had provided al-Qaida with a safe haven to plan the events of 9/11. It had yet to be proved that the Taliban was a witting host, however. As a student of the region, I believed that the United States would do well to use tribal concepts of honor to isolate and disenfranchise bin Laden and his Arab outsiders from their Taliban host. If the United States, working through the offices of the Pakistani intelligence services, could convince the Taliban that its hospitality had been abused by al-Qaida-in that the murder of innocents had been committed while under its protection-then Afghan tribal custom and honor and, even more important to the fundamentalist Taliban, Islamic law, dictated that the Taliban revoke the protections and privileges afforded bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I did not believe that the Taliban would impose justice itself, but rather could be convinced, through a combination of logic and economic incentive, to disperse al-Qaida and turn bin Laden and his senior leadership over to a third party, presumably an Islamic nation such as Pakistan or the United Arab Emirates. If a direct approach failed, then covert action, using proxy forces in Pakistan and Iran, would make contact with moderate elements of the Taliban, personified by its foreign minister, to remove the conservative Mullah Omar from power and achieve a more direct result against bin Laden and his cohorts. A new, moderate Taliban leadership would be more than capable of assembling the religious clerics necessary to convene a sharia, or Islamic, court, which would find the actions of al-Qaida to be violations of Islamic law. Also, a loya jirga, or tribal gathering, would revoke the protected status of "guest" enjoyed by bin Laden and his fellow terrorists. The least productive option America could pursue was that of direct military intervention, and I anticipated that the veteran diplomat would concur with that point of view.
What happened, however, was the exact opposite. The diplomat rejected out of hand any sort of diplomacy, arguing that there were only extremists within the ranks of the Taliban. There was, in his opinion, no such thing as a moderate Taliban, and as such the United States had no choice but to lump the Taliban and al-Qaida into a singular target set, and initiate direct military action designed to remove the Taliban from power and destroy al-Qaida in Afghanistan. I responded by noting that it would not be an easy thing to separate the Taliban from Afghan society, since the Taliban was a product of Afghan society, and that any military action against the Taliban would only strengthen the bonds between it and al-Qaida, which was of course the last result the United States should be seeking. The diplomat rejected my argument as simplistic and unrealistic. He argued for a military solution, and, of course, that was the result the Bush administration delivered. The diplomat's name? Richard Holbrooke.
The new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has appointed Holbrooke as the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. With his extensive experience in peacemaking, including negotiating the Dayton Accords, which brought an end to the horrific fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Holbrooke seems an ideal candidate for the complexities represented by the ongoing situation in Afghanistan, as well as by the related unrest in neighboring Pakistan. The presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan also plays to Holbrooke's perceived strengths, given the role played by NATO in bringing an end to the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. However, at a time when NATO itself questions the viability of the mission in Afghanistan, pushing for a solution emphasizing social and economic stability over military action, the selection of a hawk like Holbrooke is ill-advised. Not only has he demonstrated a lack of comprehension when it comes to the complex reality of Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan), Holbrooke has a history of choosing the military solution over the finesse of diplomacy. The Dayton Accords, after all, were built on the back of a NATO military presence. This does not bode well for the Obama administration.
It is highly doubtful that Holbrooke will bring anything more to the table than cheerleading. President Obama's stated intention to increase the size of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and to more forcefully assert U.S.-imposed "security" through continued military action in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is a dangerous scheme, one Holbrooke will enthusiastically support. Reinforcing failure is never a sound solution. Take it from the veteran British military officers who have served in Afghanistan and now advise that there is no military solution to the Afghan problem. Listening to advice like that would go a long way toward developing stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and neutralizing al-Qaida's ability to organize and operate in those nations. The British recognize that the Taliban is not the problem, but rather part of the solution to what ails Afghanistan.
There will be no peace without a negotiated settlement that includes the Taliban. To accomplish this, leadership is required which recognizes the Taliban as a force of moderation, and not extremism. Holbrooke does not have a record which indicates he would be willing to consider direct negotiations with the Taliban. He tends to seek military solutions to difficult ethnic-based problems, and he is likely to argue for the deployment of even more U.S. troops to that war-ravaged nation. That would be a historic mistake.
Instability within Afghanistan continues to bleed over into Pakistan. As the United States pushes for a more effective military solution, there will be even greater pressures placed on U.S. leadership to become directly involved in Pakistan. The recent events in Mumbai, where Pakistani-based terrorists killed scores of innocent civilians, only underscore the inherent instability of Pakistan, which is fighting its own internal struggle against the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. Increased American military operations against Taliban and al-Qaida forces operating inside Pakistan will be a direct result of any increased U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Such military operations will only increase the influence of Islamic fundamentalists inside Pakistan, while doing little to halt the efforts of the Taliban inside Afghanistan.
The radicalization of Pakistan has potentially disastrous implications for Pakistani-Indian relations. There is already increased talk about the possibility of war between these two nuclear-armed regional powers. Any conflict between India and Pakistan, nuclear or not, brings with it the likelihood of a breakdown of central authority within Pakistan, and would even further empower radical Islamic fundamentalists. That would bring the possibility that sensitive nuclear material, up to and including a nuclear device, would fall into their control. Such an outcome is the stuff of nightmares.
The cause-and-effect relationship between what the United States does inside Afghanistan and what occurs inside Pakistan cannot be ignored by American policymakers. As such, the goal of any U.S. special envoy to the region should be to stabilize the internal Afghan situation and de-emphasize cross-border military operations into Pakistan. Any effort which embraces the Taliban as part of a new Afghan reality would, by extension, eliminate the need to strike Taliban strongholds inside Pakistan. With the Taliban co-opted as a part of the central Afghan government, the forces of al-Qaida would lose their effectiveness, as any effort to continue to fight in Afghanistan would invariably pit them against their former allies. Reduction of hostilities in Afghanistan would create a similar reduction in hostilities in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan. This in turn would result in a reduction of events which could be used by fundamentalists to justify radical behavior. And a reduction in radical Islamic fundamentalism would in turn allow for a more stable, moderate Pakistani government operating in a manner not only conducive to peace in Afghanistan but also peace with India and the entire region.
To embrace such a policy, the United States needs to contract the services of a U.S. special envoy capable of visionary thinking, one who possesses the political courage to stand up to a president and a secretary of state and argue against bad policy. I do not believe Holbrooke is such a man. As a result, I fear that the Obama administration will find the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continuing to deteriorate to the detriment of American national security, and will increasingly waste time and energy in a period of so many problems at home and abroad. Afghanistan does not need to be one of these problems, but the selection of Richard Holbrooke as U.S. special envoy bodes ill for the prospect of lasting peace and security in a volatile region.
96 Comments so far
Show Allnewsflash for the new pres:
the world is tired of watching americans wage war - pointless and hateful affairs like the ones in iraq and afghanistan
we are also tired of watching your mini-me in israel
if it weren't for you assholes and your garrisoned universe the world would be a much better place
hey i know.......why don't you all just stay at home and kill each other
leave these defenseless countries alone
9/11 was an inside job and the war on terror is a fiction
cheers, b
Scott Ritter is a true American Hero. He withstood, in the national media spotlight,a horrific blast of demonization from the bush neocons as he repeatedly, succinctly and mathematically demonstrated, pre-invasion, the near impossibilty of WMDs existing in Iraq. I, as all USA and world citizens should, thank him for showing tremendous courage in the face of the war machine. If only Obama had his wisdom, knowledge and courage
if that was true of Scott, then he should question everything...EVERYTHING. He has faced a lot but he does not question the most pivotal point, why not? Is he afraid of being right but mocked and slandered by everyone who ridicule 'conspiracy theorists' which is pretty much everyone?
Hey, b, what peace loving, truth telling, internationally beloved country do you come from? Sounds like you're a Brit, so please accept the same complicity you thrust upon all us assholes.
And if you believe that one person can singlehandedly change the naked greed that rules not just America but the world, why haven't you done it already?
I'm not going to defend the USA's misdeeds, but Britain through it's leadership went along for the same ride. Besides Britain has also left decades if not centuries of negative imprints on the world. Zimbabwe, the Middle East and Ireland come to mind. People in glass houses.....
bryanD. You're the only person I can agree with. They all will discuss the 'official' view of the whole story till they all turn blue without even bothering to consider that they've been totally had about happened on 911. It is all pathetic and tragic.
Ray Berthiaume
What a great article! Clearly most rational. We need men like him in the State Department. How can Obama be reached with these thoughts?
Not mentioned, but relevant - -
The CIA complicity (and by extension, mine and yours) in the death of Noor Mohammed Taraki. Done to prevent egalitarian social change - like we have done several times before and since (Iran, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama....), it caused, directly or indirectly, the death of thousands of Afghans.
The $40B the CIA and its allies (the Saudi) supplied the radical mujahideen including Osama bin Laden to help defeat Russia (they were in the middle of a civil war, as we are). More Afghan deaths were the result.
UNOCAL’s plans or desires to build a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan (and to keep Argentina from getting it) to be able to access the oil/gas in Central Asia.
US installed, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has no standing in and cannot lead the country. The Taliban eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control; but, under Karzai, the opium poppy production in Afghanistan has increased dramatically (to finance the civil war?).
The Taliban represent a radical form of Sunni Islam that is no more repressive than the Wahabi sect of radical Sunni Islam that we support and defend in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, .... What's the difference? We already have their oil; they buy a lot of our weapons and we (GE, KBR, Halliburton...) have huge construction contracts.
The question is, does Obama and his advisors know or acknowledge any of this? Before we can expect diplomacy to have any effect, we have to stop killing them.
great question Ray.
I think one can reach Obama on the Whitehouse website.
I can't believe that I believe he can be reached!!!
We'll see if this administration even considers listening to we, the people.
Scott Ritter has predicted the future before and, not taking his advice and listening to his experience and wisdom has cost our country its security, cost many lives and much needless suffering.
I think our leaders should read TruthDig, Alternet and CommonDreams in order to learn what's truly important and what's going on in the world!!!
I send CD articles to congress to show them the atrocities they support.
Anyone who writes a book called "Waging Peace" can't possibly be of serious interest to any US administration. Of course Ritter's a true hero for all the speaking out he did before the invasion of Iraq, on which he proved to be right in all his criticisms, and he understands the situation in the Middle East far better than Holbrooke or Hillary, and certainly better than Obama. These are liabilities and reason enough for the Obamacons to let him nowhere near the negotiating table. Peace is not what we do. Obama will deliver plenty of rhetoric in that direction but will steer the other way, just as every American president does. War and chaos are our bread and butter, and the only chips we have to play in the Mideast, making Holbrooke perfect for the job. Ritter only introduces the inconvenient elements of truth and sanity, and no self-respecting American president can tolerate that!
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: I agree with your astute analysis. I wonder if Ritter got "the microphone" if the incisive nature of the truths he speaks could be ignored? I still hear the words of Fisk echoing when he spoke of the conditions of the same supply road used by the Russians in Afghanistan, and how the same strategy of impeding its supply lines is once again underway, the only difference in this dark "deja vu" scenario, that now it's the Americans being tripped up without access to this main vehicular artery. These wars remind me of a skit portrayed by Monty Python years ago, where soldier after soldier walks right off the edge of a roof because his commanding officer tells him to do so. The fate of any invader is already writ on the high peaks of the mountainous terrain given to protect Afghanistan from the "progress" of foreign imperialists.
OMG. Sick. Right up there with Madeline Albright's comment on the sanctions starving at least 500,000 Iraqi children, "We think the price was worth it."
Good post thanks for the backstory.
subcom9 - What is remarkable to me is how little knowledge of history we apply to our foreign policy decisions. Look at the list of foreign armies, all quite capable, that were destroyed in or driven out of Afghanistan. Scott Ritter is quite right about the need to use our brains, not merciless and undiscriminating weapons. From the very beginning, I have asked the simple question, "When did the Taliban become our enemies?" Tribal custom meant they gave refuge to the foreigner Bin Laden. That did not make them complicit. I remember them asking for proof of Bin Laden's crimes. None was forthcoming. There was no respect for the Taliban. Of course, there couldn't have been. It would have to have come from people who do not read history or perhaps even read at all. You know their names. There are many of them – still.
"When did the Taliban become our enemies?" Ever since Bush and his neocon, traitors clandestinely flew the Taliban leaders to Crawford, Texas and tried to negotiate for their security of a pipeline through Afghanistan and said: Gentlemen, we can either carpet you with gold or bombs,it is your choice. War and who are the bad guys is almost always about $.And who is the richest country in the world? So who has the most to lose? Who has the most to fear? War has always been a racket. Saudi Arabia is one of the most corrupt regimes in the world but they are our buddies ever since they agreed to the American $ oil bourse as long as they had U.S. protection for their corrupt regime.So was Saddam until he decided to change the bourse. The first thing Bush did was change the bourse back to U.S. petrodollars, but the dumbed down average,American was not told this by the MSM only that Saddam was a bad guy that killed his own people.
EXACTLY Paul Revere. That's where Cheney’s heavily guarded secret energy meetings involving Enron’s Ken Lay come in to play and the attempts to rescue Enron’s $3 billion beleaguered Dabhol India electricity plant. This plant was idled before it barely got started because Enron lacked a cheap energy source – namely the desired natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea. (Enron had been shipping in liquified natural gas from a great distance, making the electricity too expensive for the poor Indian population to afford – thus the plant was closed down by the Indian government)
Afflicted by their own phoney derivative and credit default swap like activity, Enron was quickly unraveling and desperately needed that pipeline which also needed to pass through a very unstabilized Afghanistan. So to build it, the construction crews needed security from the religious extremist Taliban who didn’t want to cooperate unless they could benefit from that pipeline. Enron, whose standard operating was above the law, refused to share. Haliburton (Cheney’s company) also stood to profit substantially from that pipeline. Anyone who worked for Enron at the time understood that 9/11 could very well have been precipitated by their companies bully practices and Cheney’s alleged threat of a “carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.” Ken Lay had also personally issued some public threats. (What other reason would motivate Cheney to desperately preserve those secrets all the way to the Supreme Court?)
dkchoc: I know this is like preaching to the choir, BUT YOU ARE SOOOO RIGHT!
When did the Taliban become our enemy? Read "Kiterunner" or for that matter recent history. Of course, Bush senior was largely responsible for the Taliban, as he was fueling them with arms to fend off the Russians. When I listen to "leaders" say how they learned they probably should not sell rebel groups arms, even though they may provide a temporary assistance to one of our causes, but, typically, it will come back and bite us, actually our children who are military, right in the ass. I guess leaders will learn that when they learn that our banks cannot be trusted to police themselves.
Screw the beltway and all the rest of them, the people have the power to decide who we do business with and when. In case anyone isn't aware of it, money talks. I applaud all the work Mr. Ritter has done and I suspect he knows his mission isn't getting the respect it should, but I don't think anyone needs to tell him that. It is so important to get behind those who can envision peace, and who have the smarts to lay out what it might look like and how it might operate. The fools in Congress are beyond cynical when it comes to a peace time economy or military. More defense, and less, a lot less, offense is what we should be demanding and the we should demand it though our pocket books. Be careful where you spend you money and make sure you know who is responsible for where you spend it, right down to your toothpaste. You will be amazed how we can change the world, when we learn where to spend our bucks.
When England left India alone, she didn't go quietly but instead divided the country up into India and Pakistan to keep the instability going and unfortunately, it has been paying off. Thank you Scott Ritter for giving us the whole picture. The American electorate needs to know and understand that we are all being played for fools.
Actually, the Brits had no say in the matter. While the Ghandian free-India movement was winning the battle for India over the Brits, who by 1945 had a socialist government that wasn't at all interested in perpetuating the Raj, the optimistic expectations of both Brits and Indians were derailed by the rise of an Islamic fundamentalist named Ali Jinnah who demanded a separate land for Indian Muslims in the north of the country. He had enough support that partition and the vicious sectarian killing that ensued was inevitable.
It was the USA who became the underwriter of Pakistan ("Land of the Pure") solely because ardent Muslims were anti-communist and happy to have US rockets on their land, pointed at the USSR, in return for financial help, most of which was spent on the Pakistani military which ended up running the sorry republic.
Meanwhile, the state of India was determinedly unaligned (in the tradition of Ghandi), a posture which led the USA to consider them no more than Commie stooges. It was also truly democratic and, despite the periodic outbreaks of sectarian violence, a truly multi-confessional nation.
Rainborowe
Ali Jinnah, Islamic fundamentalist – hardly!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah
He did eventually support it though. Living in an Islamic state like Pakistan is the same as living in a Christian cultist state like Oklahoma where I'm at. Call it a religion hell.
Sorry, but in those days (early 1940s) wanting to tear up a pretty well-run and generally peaceful sub-continent in order to have what amounted to a Muslim theocracy ("Land of the Pure," remember?) by displacing/killing people of all faiths was considered fundamentalist religion--as were the Massachusetts Puritans 200 years earlier. El-Qutb and the Egyptian Ikhwan were a decade in the future; their more violent followers, Game'at Islamiyah, a decade later than that.
If you want to read about the peaceful side of Indian Islam, there's plenty. You can do no worse than reading about Ghandi's Indian partner, a very gentle, devoutly Muslim pacifist.
Rainborowe
"Ghandi's Indian partner, a very gentle, devoutly Muslim pacifist." (its Gandhi btw ... Ghand refers to a certain part of your anatomy thats best left unsaid)
Surely you refer to Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the Frontier Gandhi dont you ? He was a brilliant statesman, a pacifist and true freedom fighter. Gaffar Khan was against partition as he was a secularist and believed (like Gandhi) in a secular, undivided India. Unfortunately his dreams died a ghastly death and his beloved Baluchistan became part of Pakistan. His newly formed country quickly became a living nightmare.
Also Jinnah was never a fundamentalist. He was highly educated and was a close confidant of Gandhi, in fact even more so than Nehru. He drank and smoked and did everything that was unislamic in its extreme. However he was an elitist and envisaged a seperate homeland for Muslims where the Muslim elite would wield more power than in India.
Ritter is right for the most part. His characterization of the Taliban as moderate has my bile flowing though. They are not. They are fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word. They became that way in large part due to the CIA and Zia supporting and creating fundamentalist militias and madrassas that ensured a steady supply of religious warriors indoctrinated from a very young age. We bear the brunt of their follies.
The US as always is the biggest culprit followed closely by Pakistans military and ISI. The only way out of this mess is to involve the neighbours like Tariq Ali said. Bring in Russia and Iran and India into the equation.
Abdul Gaffar, that's the man. Sorry for the typo on Gandhi; I was thinking in Arabic.
You seem to be throwing the word "fundamentalist" around without much sense of what it means.
AG certainly was not a fundamentalist but he was a believer. And education has nothing to do with fundamentalism. At one university I taught at the physics professorate, all with Ph.D.s from American and European countries, were Muslim Brothers. I also taught girls who were the very well-educated daughters of a Scottish-trained surgeon who was also a Muslim Brother. The Brothers have far more in common with the Pilgrim Fathers than with the Taliban. The Puritans, being congregationalists like Sunni Muslims, stressed the importance of education in order to read the Word of God for themselves rather than have it interpreted for them by a priest. The first generation of Massachusetts Pilgrims founded Harvard in order to have an educated pastorate; the early Muslims founded Um Qais--a millennium earlier.
In other words one can be a religious fundamentalist without being an a illiterate yahoo. Or not.
Rainborowe
"In other words one can be a religious fundamentalist without being an a illiterate yahoo."
I agree. I suppose i should have narrowed it down to Wahabbist or Jihadist or some such term that implies a narrow and unquestioned interpretation of religious texts. Ofcourse, narrow religious views were the domain of Christians and Catholics for centuries before they became associated with Islam. Im an atheist and its hard for me to analyze the extent of ones belief.
Now you're moving in the most functional direction. But are Wahabbist and Jihadist how "they" label themselves? Each and everyone of the "militants" and "terrorists"? And what actions have you observed that "implies a narrow and unquestioned interpretation" - and what human need(s) are they trying to fill through their actions, narrow or otherwise?
"Wahhabism" was a very strict puritanical reformation of Islam. It was named after a Nejdi (from the central area of present-day Saudi Arabia)named, in short, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in the mid-1700s. It had a lot in common with the Puritans of 16th and 17th century England and Massachussetts. A-Wahhab believed that Islam as currently practised had departed far from the original purity of Mohammed's time and launched a movement including a peninsula-wide war to return to what A-W believed to be the true, pure way, a war in which he formed an alliance with a petty chieftain called Mohammed ibn-Sa'ud. You no doubt recognize the last name. They're no longer petty chieftains.
"Jihad" means a religious endeavor. The nearest to it in English is a "crusade." It can be a warlike endeavor or a solely spiritual one but it's best not to use the term "crusade" among Arabs because they have very bitter historical memories of the depradations of the Christian European Crusaders.
You don't have to be a Wahhabi to be a jihadi, just as you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a crusader any more. And, yes, the terms are used by the practitioners although less so with "Wahhabi" as they consider it the one pure religion--rather as the Puritans didn't call themselves "Calvinists" despite adopting most of his doctrines: to them it was the one pure Christian faith.
I hope this helps.
Rainborowe
That explains why a few so-called "foreign policy experts" back here in Tulsa keep arguing that Pakistan is trying to help the US "win the war on terror" while India is a "poor commie nation" ! Sickening, I tell you.
Unfortunately Mr Ritter's always keen analysis of historical pathways to peace was ignored by the new administration. The handywork of Holbrook was so quick that he didn't have time to change his socks. Today Obama ordered the first stikes at al Qaida sites in Pakistan killing upwards of 100 people, mostly civilians depending on sources.
We, the nation and the world, demand equal time for those Mr Ritter's who advocate a peaceful dialog to the worlds ills.
Wrong again, what else is new?
Hilary is going to be Obama's Cheney with her own uber hawk shadow government.
Yup it happened anyway. That's definitely why she wasn't picked VP. At least that prayer was answered.
How many Scott Ritter's are there?
Going back over some of Ritter's other analyses, I find some strange contradictions.
In September 1998 Ritter resigned his position as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and one week later he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee saying he'd resigned because the Clinton administration was undermining his team's efforts to "rid Iraq of it's weapons of mass destruction." He specifically referred to "Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons." He said "we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic-missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers." He mentioned "weaponized VX" gas, a "biological weapons plant" and "hidden Scud missiles." He said his team was not being allowed to inspect "areas where we know material related to Iraq's past proscribed programs are."
Later, Ritter completely reversed course, saying that Bill Clinton's December 1998 Operation Desert Fox was a 72-hour bombing campaign which used "the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action" (See Hillary Run, published March 3, 2007 by AlterNet and CommonDreams). He said "lies about Iraq's weapons programs" were used to "justify attacks on that country" by the Clinton administration. He said Clinton "lie[d] to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped."
In that same article he said, "I personally witnessed the Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993 after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the UN inspector's findings that Iraq's missile program had been fundamentally disarmed."
He said, "I led the UN inspector's investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper."
He said, "Saddam was in fact already disarmed, and President Bill Clinton knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998."
So which is true? Ritter's September 1998 Senate testimony that Iraq still had WMD? Or his later claims that he, the other weapons inspectors, and the Clinton administration all knew by December 1998 (and for years before that) that Iraq had no WMD?
The history and analysis that Ritter provides today regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan seems logical (and I personally think military action in Pakistan is a mistake). But, can we trust what Ritter says? I don't know.
Having just read my own post, it strikes me that the only constant in Ritter's claims (above) is his attack on Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 1998 he attacked Bill Clinton for being too weak on Iraq, saying he (Ritter) knew that Iraq had WMD. In 2007 he attacked Hillary Clinton, saying her husband had been too tough on Iraq, and that he (Ritter) knew Iraq had no WMD and he had informed Clinton of that fact.
It appears that Ritter adjusts the facts to suit his agenda.
Sounds like Naturally is engaging in kill the messenger agitprop. I spent six months in Afghanistan pre Soviet invasion. Ritter is absolutely correct.
I'm only seeking the truth here. Nothing else.
How do you explain Ritter's contradictory claims specified in my post of January 24th, 2009 2:36 pm? He has claimed both that he knew Iraq had WMD, and that he knew that Iraq did NOT have WMD. And both during the same time period.
I googled "Scott Ritter hypocrite" and found this gem: Ritter v. Ritter
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/ritter_v_ritter/
.That site fails to accurately cite one single link in support of those "statements". I remember when Ritter was smeared as a child molester for vocally and continually opposing the Bush agenda in Iraq. In the absence of verification I believe this stuff to be on a par with that previous accusation.
Here is a typical distortion of the words of Ritter from that article:
In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.
... The article says only that Ritter stated,"I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!" Sounds more like Limbaugh than anything else, quoting out of context to make an invalid point.
I wonder if you fact checked this crap yourself or merely seized upon it to prove a point it doesnt really prove. All this shows is that the site you linked to is being disingenuous and you are either being duped or worse.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I have a suggestion for Scott Ritter.
As Martin Luther nailed The 95 Thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Willenberg, so should Scott Ritter, in the full dress of Martin Luther, attach this article on the front gates of the White House.
Overwhelm Obama Website and Congressional Mailboxes.
Post this Ritter piece to the Obama website again and again as well as to every Congressional member in your state.
Don't relent.
By the way did you all see the shockingly well done Frontline on PBS the last week of December 2008? It was all about the dangers of staying in Afghanistan. I couldn't praise it enough. I don't have the web link but I shouldn't be hard to find. Send that web link to them as well.
My conclusion after watching the Frontline on Afghanistan: We are just adding fuel to fire. The US occupation is creating the anti-imperialists fervor and momentum for the complete collapse of Pakistan as well. The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is at stake.
Maybe someone up there might just get it before its too late.
Good luck to you all.
Here it is:
PBS Frontline Web link on Afghanistan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/
Pass it on.
I get the impression that people are being picked for senior positions because their names have been associated with the problem they will be assigned to, regardless of their past success or failure. Only that could explain why the people that helped bring the housing subprime bubble are being chosen to “lead” us out of this economic mess. This approach to central Asia seems to be the same thing. When the economic situation blossomed into a full blown, oh-s**t-it's-getting-personal crisis, Obama seems to have lost his nerve and started backtracking towards people with “experience” in various areas of policy. It makes me wonder how much has been orchestrated from behind the scenes to force him in this direction in order that the power and wealthy elite could maintain their status quo. Am I being paranoid?
No, he wasn't. See my above post.
I have watched Scott Ritter with great interest over the years. I believe Ritter has bit by bit become more insightful about the way the world works. His earliest disillusionment started under Clinton when Ritter realised Clinton was tagetting Iraqi sites based on information Ritter had given the UN. Clinton's bombing of Iraq had killed Iraqi officers who had co-operated with Ritter by giving relavent information which Ritter had assured them was only for the UN.
Then as Bush started lying about Iraq being a threat, Scott heroicly tried to expose the lies. Ritter felt he had already fundamentally disarmed Iraq and yet now Bush was saying Iraq would not disarm. For Scot's antiwar efforts, the Neocons went to incredible lengths to shut him up.
Basically one could say Scott Ritter's world view and politics were severely radicalized by his own experience of the American Empire in practice - and over a short period of time. However, in his manner and in many of his values he still appeared rather conservative to me when I finally met him on an antiwar speaking tour.
I think Scott felt that most peace activists were too anarchistic and disorganised for his taste. He has argued somewhere on-line that the antiwar movement would benefit from being a lot better organised. Scott needed to realize that one can't just boss around peace activist volunteers like soldiers in the armed forces.
Jan, please take a look at my post of January 24th, 2009 2:36 pm. How do you explain these contradictions?
I had already read your link(s) and so I tried to explain here that Ritter's views about what was happening changed bit by bit. I also tried to explain why he changed his views. Have you read my comment above?
Some diplomats just aren't smart enough to successfully negotiate a peace. It seems to me they should be given a definite time line to deliver what we, the people, want, PEACE! If they can't deliver, dump them and get someone who can.