An unbelievable interview with an American Military Counter Terrorism expert on BBC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

I'm extremely skeptical of anything the American military says. But, this guy from West Point was incredible in his views that Al-Queda is winning the "war on terrorism" and that it is due to the view that it is the failure of politicians to implement effective policies.

I expect this to drop like a rock but, hopefully, some of you will take the time to listen to it. This guy belongs on Obama's staff if he gets elected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/the_interview.shtml

[williesgirl]

1. k&r

[WhiteTara]

2. k&r

[GardeningGal]

3. I will definitely listen to it a little later, I'm leaving in few minutes.

You should send it on to the Obama campaign if you think he should be on their staff. Maybe you'll get an answer.

[Karenina]

4. . .

[unblock]

5. the "war on terror" is being fought with the most idiotic strategies

your house gets robbed, you swear to never let it happen again. so you travel to the bad part of town and start shooting at anything that moves.

fucking brilliant.

there will ALWAYS be terrorists and people who hate america as long as we're the richest country in the world. although, republicans seem to be addressing that point very effectively.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I would be extremely skeptical of anything the American military says.

You should have stopped there. They are all about finding the straightest line between two points. The problem is, that if they're aiming the gun and there are civilians or ethics that are in the crossfires, so be it.

Though he's not completely wrong about politicians. Sibel Edmonds has the skinny how they interfere with policy implementation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I totally agree.

However, much to my surprise, this guy was bold enough to point out that the reliance on the "military option" was, at best, shortsighted and doomed to failure.

Compared to the usual flagwaving, "support our troops", and "victory" bullshit usually pumped out by the military it was rather refreshing to hear a military type acknowledge that it's not working.

My distaste for (to put it mildly) and skepticism of the military remains intact.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. I'm really disappointed in our military.

I don't know what happened to them. How did they get so corrupted? You see, between businessmen, military and politicians, who started the process of corruption? Who influenced who? What was the trail of contamination?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Well, Ike warned of it back in the '50s.

Not to mention Smedley Butler ("war is a rackte") in the '20s I think. And, the founders were against a standing army.

4 years in the Marine Crotch convinced me of it's corruption.

[moodforaday]

12. One step forward, two steps back

However, much to my surprise, this guy was bold enough to point out that the reliance on the "military option" was, at best, shortsighted and doomed to failure.

This is the Zbigniew Brzezinski / Brent Scowcroft / James Baker view. And since Brzezinski is advising Obama in some capacity, it may be close to Obama's view as well. Now, halting the military actions would be a step in the right direction, but you'd only be curing the symptoms, not the disease. There is little difference between Brzezinski and the neocons when you look at their fundamental goals, which is the US empire (what Brzezinski prefers to call hegemony) controlling Eurasia and the Middle East. They differ mostly on implementation of the policy. In practice - less bombing, more covert ops, more economic subversion, more money to "freedom fighters" (think Contras), more CIA-sponsored color revolutions to overthrow lefty governments or those that won't play ball with Uncle Sam. What the "economic hitman" John Perkins describes in his book.

The practical difference is that an open war has a visible cost, in lives and in money, and is nearly always going to be relatively unpopular. Covert ops are also costly and result in blowback, but the budget is classified, you don't hear about them on the news, it's difficult to put a slogan on a banner about them. And if they succeed, there may be some indirect benefit to the economy (as in, cheaper goods from third-world countries), so things appear to go well and on the surface there is little to be concerned about.

I must say I don't know which is worse. War means many more direct deaths, but the secret dealings likewise result in untold suffering, only to the politicians there is usually no cost at the polls.

[AntiFascist]

10. oh please, Al Qaeda has always been part of the strategy...

War against al Qaeda is the stop-gap measure when the economy really starts to fail. World War will put people back to work, it will get peoples' minds off of personal failure, and it will help secure our much needed oil resources. Zeig Heil!

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. Bush did not invade Iraq to win any damn war against Al-Quada

We will never "win".

The Neo-cons need an ongoing enemy to justify their continuing oil and land grabs.
They are putting permanent bases in Iraq.
Along the pipelines.

Bin Laden is still not "caught".
The Neo-cons are putting permanent bases in Afghanistan, "co-incidently" along the oil pipeline in NE part of the country.

Please Youtube "Chalmers Johnson", a widely respected historian, who explains this reality much better than I can.

[Shanti Mama]

13. Chalmers Johnson is amazing.

I watched "Hijacking Catastrophe" the other night. Interview segments with him are used extensively. I posted here afterwards. I could not breathe. It was terrifying and edifying. Everyone needs to watch the entire Hijacking film, available in sections on Youtube. And google him -- you'll find quite a few prescient articles.