Marching Toward Hell
SHOES THROWER
By Jim Miles
"Palestine Chronicle" -- Michael Scheuer's new work "Marching Toward Hell"
is very clear with its overall purpose of exposing where American interests
have gone wrong in their interactions with the various peoples, beliefs, and
religions of the Middle East. As an ex-CIA agent specifically working on
gathering information on Osama bin Laden and al Queda, Scheuer appears to
have a solid background of information on the message and intentions of bin
Laden. He also has a solid perspective of putting �America first' that more
often than not contradicts the neo-traditional view of American
exceptionalism and unilateralism.
There are moments when his obvious pro-American rhetoric becomes too edgy,
but given the nature of his career and his place within the American
establishment, those moments can be seen as a natural part of his personal
paradigm - America first, quit the stupidity of a foreign policy that only
attracts more people of the world to dislike, hate, and attack us. There are
several main ideas that run through the course of the work, each receiving
slightly different emphasis as time and place changes through events.
Scheuer starts very strongly, stating that his goal is to "reconstruct how
the United States found itself in an untenable set of foreign policies and
national-security strategies" on 9/11; and secondly, to explain and "assess
the costs of the U.S. government's stubborn and obviously losing rearguard
action to maintain these catastrophically deficient policies and
strategies." The latter idea he reinforces consistently and very simply by
stating throughout the book that, yes, the U.S. has lost the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, always referring to the loss in past tense - not that it is
a possibility but that it has already happened.
Associated with the maintenance of the catastrophic policies he argues
effectively "policy makers from both parties...must stand guilty of wilful
historical ignorance, a paucity of common sense, and...a disastrous degree
of intellectual hubris." That statement is no news for many who have opposed
war from a well-informed perspective, but to an American audience, coming
from someone obviously proud of their country in many other respects, it is
a clear stark statement of culpability in the disasters in the Middle East.
Ignorant elites
From that starting point the concept of ignorance is also tied in with the
"elites", not well defined, but obviously intended to mean the foreign
policy decision makers and power controllers in a fully bipartisan critique.
The elites reveal a "staggering level of ignorance and dishonesty,"
"ignorant of history," hold "those who have made it in contempt," the
seeming "permanent obtuseness of their [Americans] elite," and a "wilful
blindness to this reality."
The reality that the elite are blinded to in the realm of foreign policy
carries several facets. First he recognizes that "the energy resources upon
which the U.S. economy depends are controlled by foreigners, among whom are
Muslim leaders." Secondly he understands that "our immense and growing
debt," which allows the continuation of the war effectively subsidized by
possible economic/ strategic opponents, "is increasingly held by" foreigners
who are either economic rivals or energy masters who "run directly counter
to U.S. national security interests." Finally, and this is repeated at
intervals throughout the book, the elite "has put the United States in the
addle-brained position of backing both sides in a vicious religious war
between Israelis and Arabs, thereby making us part of an endless war in
which we have nothing at stake but the emotions, religious affiliation, and
divided loyalties of two small segments of our population."
Israeli Firsters
Scheuer recognizes the power of one of those "small segments." It is not so
much the Israeli lobby itself that he criticizes, but the
"Israeli-firsters," those of the elite who whole-heartedly adopt the cause
of Israel as the cause of America. He describes them as "dangerous
men...seeking to place de facto limitations on the First Amendment to
protect the nation of their primary attachment [Israel]." He vociferously
denies that "to believe that relationship is not only a burden but a cancer
on America's ability to protect its genuine national interests...equates to
either anti-Semitism or a lack of American patriotism." He concludes that
these elite Israeli-firsters "are either the most suspect in the realm of
loyalty or simply resolute liars who champion the fantasy of identical U.S.
and Israeli national interests."
Within his extensive and well referenced notes, a worthy read for further
details and support, Scheuer says "it ought to be a source of pride for
Israeli citizens" for the success of their intelligence services, but it
also "speaks volumes abut the gullibility or cupidity of the U.S. governing
elite." That note follows a text comment on "what can only be describes as
superbly effective covert political action by Israel's intelligence services
[remember the author's CIA experience for this perspective]." The issue of
foreign policy with Israel is "perhaps the only one that is certainly immune
to challenge or change." American policy towards Israel is "absolutely
irrelevant and manifestly counterproductive to the national-security
interest of the United States," and further "Americans and their future are
put increasingly at risk," as Israel "contributes nothing to America's
economic welfare or strategic security but is a drain on both."
Scheuer also recognizes the contradiction in Israel demanding that the
"fairly and democratically elected Hamas government...must renounce a large
part of the basis for its election." Accordingly it seems clear that the
"right to exist is based not on a right at all but on one side's ability to
coerce abject surrender from the other." Americans themselves do not demand
a right to exist, and "has no more right to exist than does Israel,
Palestine, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Belgium or Russia."
All this on Israel is the first part of the "shackles" placed on American
foreign policy.
Oil, Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden
The second shackle is oil. What common sense is there to a foreign policy
that after the Saudi demonstration of intent with the oil embargo in 1973,
continued to rely on that same country for its energy sources? In his usual
bold strongly worded manner of criticism, Scheuer says "shortsightedness,
negligence, and stupidity were and are blatant in Washington's decisions to
tie U.S. national security to that of another nation-state, and to acquiesce
in ceding to the anti-American Saudis control over U.S. access to the
strategic commodity of oil," leaving American governments with "virtually no
room to manoeuvre in the Muslim world," leading directly into "bin Laden's
well-laid trap."
Unlike the popular media that echoes the mindless semi-theological name
calling from the elite - use of the words such as "evil", "wickedness",
"savages", "immoral" - Scheuer does not underestimate his opponent. Quite
the opposite as he says of bin Laden that his "focus on the impact of U.S.
foreign policies in the Muslim world suggest either genius or extraordinary
good luck." Not having much belief in the significance of luck he continues,
"I think it is best to give America's most dangerous enemy the benefit of
the doubt and judge bin Laden to be a near political genius."
Scheuer's position arises from examining the consistent wording, demands,
and actions from bin Laden himself. Well before 9/11 the CIA had information
on the tactics and whereabouts of bin Laden, information not utilized to
capture or kill him because, as Scheuer sees it, the leaders, the elite,
always had other "nuances in international politics" that trumped any actual
attack on bin Laden himself. It might need to be considered that the elite
needed someone like bin Laden in order to push forward with their own
designs, however misguided they might be. Bin Laden, unlike the Iranian
Ayatollahs who have played the American game of labelling the other "evil"
and "wicked", has consistently put forth several demands that are the �trap'
into which the Americans have stepped.
Bin Laden's demands are quite explicit and clear, and unlike the projections
from Bush and his coterie of neocons, it has nothing to do with "They hate
us because of our freedoms." Scheuer lists them as "precise, limited, and
consistent": U.S. presence on the Arab Peninsula; unqualified support of
Israel; support for states oppressing Muslims (e.g. Russia); exploitation of
oil resources; military presence throughout Islamic world; and U.S. support
and funding of Arab police states. Each step the U.S. has taken with its
foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia and Africa has only
provided support for bin Laden's contentions and "have strengthened bin
Laden's argument in the minds of hundreds of million of Muslims."
The focus on U.S. foreign policy produces a "glue of unity" for the
"diversity of a highly fragmented Islamic civilization"; "those who argue
that hatred of U.S. lifestyles and electoral process motivates our Islamist
enemies....is either sadly stupid or a studied liar." Another additional
fear factor dispelled is that of global jihad. None of bin Laden's focus as
presented above has anything to do with Muslim global domination, and this
as well fits into the recognition of his activities of a defensive jihad
against transgressions on Muslim territory, not against American activities
in other parts of the world.
Solutions explicit but undefined
The shackles of oil and Israel, the elitist ignorance of the American
government, the antagonism of the Muslim world supported by the predictions
and indictments of bin Laden have created a losing position for the
Americans no matter what they attempt to do. The height of the hypocrisy and
ignorance are Americans blaming the Iraqis and Afghanis for not being able
to put together a decent democratic society in the American image. Scheuer
works within the realm of American exceptionalism with one major
qualification, "American democracy and republicanism are unique and largely
unexportable.[italics added]" The theme of "arrogance...ignorance and
naivet�" of the elite is reiterated for American leaders "trying to install
America's system in devoutly Islamic lands."
His answers are not as well developed as his testament to the losing cause
of the current foreign policy based on the six elements of bin Laden's basic
demands listed above. However, he is quite explicit in saying America first
(domestic policy trumps foreign policy, let's do something about our own
class divisions first), forget about supporting Israel and being dragged
into any war it wants; physically secure the U.S. (border fences, trenches,
watch towers, minefields) - a bit of a paradox in his arguments here as
means of separation are highly porous and expensive, and in this case, in my
mind, only reinforce the militant insularity of the American elite; state
control over militias; congressional control over declarations of war rather
than the "tyranny...where the decision to go to war rests with one
individual;" energy independence; and finally, a foreign policy toward the
Islamic world that is "noninterventionist, commerce oriented,
non-ideological, focussed on life and death national interests."
The latter statement is a weakness throughout the work, in that while
advocating to leave the Muslim world alone, Scheuer does not define what his
perceived "life and death interests" are, certainly not domestic policy of
an American firster, one would hope. He does not indicate what the national
security interests of the U.S. are. All U.S. presidents since Eisenhower
have indicated that oil is of strategic interest to the U.S. How will that
be handled, other than the vague reference to energy independence? What then
are the U.S. national interests that would lead to American intervention
abroad, if any? Commercial interests in the past as with Latin America? And
what of the CIA's own role in undermining various governments and
associations since the 1950s, will that continue?
A final note on Scheuer's position with the CIA. He admits that he is one to
have initiated the rendition program but says that the way it was intended
to be used is not how it actually was used - a valid idea, good intentions,
with different outcomes. As one of his underlying themes throughout his book
is that of "unintended but predictable consequences" regardless of intent,
he loses his argument in this case, as he does not seem to have been able to
predict or foresee that a rendition program, to states that do use torture
and do not have the legal protections as provided by U.S. law, would have
many negative consequences, both for the individual and for the reality and
perceptions of American foreign policy as well.
There are moments of Scheuer's own America-centrism that are not easy to
accept but do not detract validity from his arguments to any degree (as with
Ronald Reagan being the unqualified conquering hero of the Soviet Union).
Otherwise "Marching Toward Hell" is a readily accessible read and Scheuer
has supported well his ideas on bin Laden and why America has lost the wars
in the Middle East. He does not mince his words, and will probably make many
enemies at home, but his arguments will not be defeated by rhetoric and
hubris alone, the main weapons the elite would have against him.
- Marching Toward Hell - America and Islam after Iraq. Michael Scheuer. Free
Press (Simon & Schuster), New York, 2008.
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of
opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles' work is
also presented globally through other alternative websites and news
publications.
Send Page To a Friend
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20238.htm
