Hurrah for Robert Baer after all

[theaustinescorts]

Robert Baer was a non-offical cover CIA officer who worked in the middle east in the 1980s and 1990s who's written a number of books which I highly disagreed with. However in an NPR interview yesterday he made these points, all of which I highly agree with.

1.Because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq CIA has no coverage in any of the countries where dramatic change is now occurring, such as Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

2.Although al-Qaeda can still perform a few stunts, they have been shown to have virtually no importance in the Arab world anymore. They are playing no role in the changes that are coming about.

3.The US is "fighting the last war" by focusing on al-Qaeda, and needs to get involved in the rebel movements sweeping across the Arab world.

4.The regimes which are falling, including the Saudis, are all minority Sunni regimes threatened by Shii opposition. This will benefit Iran, however when Iran becomes more powerful they will moderate their behavoir. They will come to the table more powerful but less aggressive.

Very astute Mr. Baer.

[BladeRunner]

He forgot that Iran is facing its own internal issues and could end up with a revolution of their own on their hands if they are not careful.
He also forgot to mention the "rise" and growing discontent of the new "educated middle class" in mainland China and the problems that is causing that government.
But beyond those omissions he is correct on those four points.

[theaustinescorts]

He was asked about Iran, and frustratingly said that he considered the prospects of a similar phenomenon there "a neocon's fantasy."

Actually I agree with him. My interpretation of the "democracy movement" there associated with the prior elections was a smokescreen for a rival elite which was manipulating the "democracy movement."

Iran definitely has its problems. In January alone the government there executed 80 political dissidents, some of them women, who were convicted on bogus charges.

Despite all their problems however what holds them together ultimately is the same unity-building factor which has held Cuba together all these years -- serious dissent is regarded by most people as cooperation with imperialist forces which oppressed them in the past.

This is the reason why it's been impossible for the US to recruit ANY IRANIAN OR CUBAN AGENTS since their respective revolutions.

All fourty or so Cuban agents the CIA was running since the 1980s turned out to be doubles. In the early 1960s the reason why none of the assassination attempts or efforts at subversion worked is because all the anti-Castro movements were totally penetrated by him.

These countries have tremendous loyalty by their peoples, regardless of how much oppression their governments might meet out. This is because of the suffering they experienced at the hands of foreigners in their histories.

[oralick]

I remember Baer being on the news, when our troops were charging into Iraq claiming victory and the bringing of Democracy, as being a little skeptical. He seemed to have a realistic idea of what was ahead, but no one seemed to want to listen to him. After all, he had only been in the region for around ten years or so. He seemed to have been discarded as a source of information.

[theaustinescorts]

He and almost everyone else who worked in that region felt the same way during the war. Everyone who worked there was ignored by the media, and he was perhaps the only exception because he had published several books.

Actually I have to say he's about the most well informed person available on these topics.

Where I disagreed with his books was that he argued that the US should have been more serious about Hezbollah and Saudi support of militants because his mission involved working against them. And then there's the matter of his endorsement of the film, "Syriana," which is to me the most distorted view of CIA and American policy there that I've ever seen. It was a disgrace, and he actually appeared in it.

What Baer doesn't understand from the POV of a case officer [the lowest level of government work] is that there are dilemmas and ambiguities in policy which cause some missions to be sacrificed in favor of others. It's understandable that he doesn't like that because blood was spilled by Hezbollah, etc., and it's a moral issue to him, but I agree with policy that Hezbollah and Islamic militancy isn't the most important issue. In 1979 when the Iranians were holding American diplomats hostage I thought they were not the most important issue either.

Sometimes larger security matters have to trump the particular mission you are devoted to, and it's hard when that happens.

[bootoo33]

you must be bored

[averageTxJoe]

I sorely disagree with "fighting the last war". Humankind seems to have a fetish for killing as history clearly shows since records have been kept. What makes you think this will magically stop?

I do agree with the other points.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

3.The US is "fighting the last war" by focusing on al-Qaeda, and needs to get involved in the rebel movements sweeping across the Arab world.

[theaustinescorts]

"Fighting the last war" is a common phrase referring to the mistake nations always make when faced with new kinds of threats. Government institutions, including their militaries, are resistant to adapting.

Most CIVILIZED people don't like killing other people, and are resistant to war. Even in WW II [which media leaders like Stephen Speilberg thinks was a wonderful war] the TRUTH IS 60 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT WERE DRAFTED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SERVE. Then when they were in combat they would hide to avoid shooting their weapons at another human being, or they would shoot above their heads so they wouldn't kill them.* This is the truth about modern war. In the German army many soldiers killed themselves rather than participate in the mass slaughter they would be required to do on the eastern front. You rarely hear about this because militaries seek to hide these facts, but they study them intensively.

It is only a minority of people in civilized nations who enjoy killing and making war. War comes about when those particular kinds of people are in the position to make the decision to start a war. Then these same people never act to stop it once it's begun. The people are left thinking there is no alternative to continue fighting, but in reality there's plenty of opportunity to negotiate an end. But the people who started the war don't see any point in ending it. During the first two years of the American Civil War most people in the north wanted to negotiate with the Confederacy to end it, but Lincoln alone refused to negotiate. He wouldn't stop fighting until slavery was ended, the opposite of what he said was his goal. Sometimes the people will have to revolt in order to bring an stop to it, such as in Russia in 1917 or even in the US during the Vietnam War. In the American Civil War there were riots in northern cities against the war, but Lincoln crushed this dissent ruthlessly. Pacifist groups like the Quakers were subjected to physical torture under orders from Lincoln.

As far as UNCIVILIZED people are concerned, they have completely different temperaments. Savage peoples, such as still exists in Africa, live with killing all their lives and have no reservations about it.
Among savage peoples warfare is a constant state, as is killing anyone around them for any particular reason, including entertainment. Unfortunately the political ideology of "relativism" which infected cultural anthropology some time ago has discarded the fundamental distinctions between civilized and uncivilized peoples, between civilization, barbarism and savagery. Speaking from my experiences in Africa, savagery is not cool or amusing. It is a cultural state of utter sadistic cruelty to others, disregard of anyone or their interests. It is a jungle, and a state not worth living in. It is hell.

*Studies showed that in most combat units only 10 to 15 percent of soldiers did all the fighting. That explains why US army combat units had such miserably low combat power. Only elite, all-volunteer units such as the 101st airborne, or the 82nd airborne, Army Rangers, etc. performed with expected combat power. It is of course only these units that media and filmmakers depict.

[averageTxJoe]

I would agree that most "civilized" people do not like killing other people ... but it seems to me that most, if not all, wars that have occurred throughout the worlds history is a result of "supposed civilized" people that are more interested in power and money than the diplomatic "public" reasons to go to war. These people have "ruled the world" undercover for centuries and have no regard for ordinary peoples. I fully understand how difficult it is to be put into a combat situation and make a choice to take another life. People that have never served and witnessed combat have no clue what that is about. That is one thing that infuriates me when people, such as politicians, want to use war as a solution.

In regards to "uncivilized" people that is a common fact resulting from the fear or inability to advance at the same rate as the rest of the world. They are no different than us really except their cultures refuse (or have difficulty) to "keep up" with the human industrial/technological evolution.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

"Fighting the last war" is just a common mistake nations always make when faced with new kinds of threats. Government institutions, including their militaries, are resistant to adapting.

Most CIVILIZED people don't like killing other people, and are resistant to war. Even in WW II, which filmmakers like Stephen Speilberg thinks was a wonderful war that enobled Americans who fought in it, the TRUTH IS 60 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT WERE DRAFTED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SERVE. Then when they were in combat they would hide to avoid shooting their weapons at another human being, or they would shoot above their heads so they wouldn't kill them. This is the truth about modern war. In the German army many soldiers killed themselves rather than participate in the mass slaughter they would be required to do on the eastern front. You rarely hear about this because the militaries seek to hide these facts, but they study them intensively.

It is only a minority of people who enjoy killing and making war. War comes about when those particular kinds of people are in the position to make the decision to start a war. Then because these same people are there they never act to stop it once it's begun.

As far as UNCIVILIZED people are concerned, they have completely different temperaments. Savage peoples, such as still exists in Africa, live with killing all their lives and have no reservations about it.
Among savage peoples warfare is a constant state, as is killing anyone around them for any particular reason, including entertainment. Unfortunately the political ideology of "relativism" which infected cultural anthropology some time ago has discarded the fundamental distinctions between civilized and uncivilized peoples, between civilization, barbarism and savagery. Speaking from my experiences in Africa, savagery is not cool or amusing. It is a cultural state of utter sadistic cruelty to others, disregard of anyone or their interests. It is a jungle, and a state not worth living in. It is hell.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by averageTxJoe

In regards to "uncivilized" people that is a common fact resulting from the fear or inability to advance at the same rate as the rest of the world. They are no different than us really except their cultures refuse (or have difficulty) to "keep up" with the human industrial/technological evolution.

I disagree that uncivilized people have the same values and temperaments about violence that civilized peoples have. I believe strongly that inhibitions about violence and cruelty are culturally-derived. Peoples that grow up in savage societies where there is no empathy towards others have minds that are totally different from people who grow up in civilized societies.

Cultural anthropology sought to deny this because this fact was used as a justification for imperialism, slavery, and other subjagations of primative peoples. In fact anthropologists won't even accept the word "primative" anymore. It is a continuing doctrine which is at odds with all of human experience however, and my own personal experience of living in Africa for years.

We are not all the same.

[averageTxJoe]

But as a human being we are and as you stated it's the culture that creates the differences. Just a different viewpoint I suppose.

[theaustinescorts]

Historians and politically-correct anthropologists have lied to us about the brutal, savage nature of the natives in the Americas.

When the Spainish arrived in the capital of the Aztecs they were so shocked by the rampant carnage there that they actually thought they had stumbled into the physical hell described in the bible.

They made up their minds right then and there that they would destroy the Aztecs, and plunder whatever they had.

Personally I think they made the right decision.

All the native peoples in the Americas were brutal, savage killers who lived in a constant state of war with their neighbors. To all of them the cheapest thing around was human life itself, and they were all grisly sadists. I do not blame the Europeans for conquering them, marginalizing them, or otherwise displacing them.

This has all been glossed over however by acedemics who have romanticized the native peoples.

What makes our lives worth living is civilization. It is the source of all happiness. We cannot recognize that without also recognizing the absence of it, which is savagery. Savagery in all its forms must be codemned if we are to have happiness. If we don't we will survive, but without any happiness. What threatens civilization today is the political doctrine that all people, whatever they might be, are of equal value and character. To accept that you have to deny that brutality is encouraged in primitive cultures, which is what they have been eager to do.

[Yssup Rider]

I get it theaustinescorts. You are obviously very passionate about the Middle East. I'm guessing you might even have personal ties to the affairs of the region.

I've read your posts, then skimmed them, then stopped coming to the Sandbox.

Seems to me that your threads aren't quite resonating with the general membership because only a few among us are that well-read on Arab States politics... and the U.S. incursion into the region.

I have enjoyed the odd political discussion from time to time in the past. But it seems as though this is the dominant theme of the Sandbox.

Anything ELSE on your mind? I'd love to discuss, debate, etc., in a thread without the kind of shitfights we commonly see in the co-ed forum.

Just an observation... and a request... amigo!

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

"Fighting the last war" is a common phrase referring to the mistake nations always make when faced with new kinds of threats. Government institutions, including their militaries, are resistant to adapting.

Most CIVILIZED people don't like killing other people, and are resistant to war. Even in WW II [which media leaders like Stephen Speilberg thinks was a wonderful war] the TRUTH IS 60 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT WERE DRAFTED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SERVE.

It's misleading to say that 60 percent were drafted because they "didn't want to serve". There's no proof to back that up. The fact is less than 25% of Americans were against U.S. involvement in WWII. The high draft percentage comes from the fact that it was the only way to ratchet up the manpower the U.S. military needed. The U.S. Army was decimated manpower wise following WWI. There was no faster or efficient way to get the number of men into the military than to institute a draft. That didn't mean these men didn't want to fight, but the military certainly couldn't afford to wait for people to walk through the recruiting doors.
16.1 MILLION Americans served in WWII. That kind of manpower necessitated a draft.

Then when they were in combat they would hide to avoid shooting their weapons at another human being, or they would shoot above their heads so they wouldn't kill them.*

It is true that some men had trouble aiming at and hitting the enemy. Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman in his excellent book: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society speaks about this issue. However it had more to do with training at that time than with "fear" on the part of the soldiers.

This is the truth about modern war. In the German army many soldiers killed themselves rather than participate in the mass slaughter they would be required to do on the eastern front. You rarely hear about this because militaries seek to hide these facts, but they study them intensively.

Very few of today's American military personnel have these kinds of issues. Percentage wise most have no qualms or issues in engaging the enemy with deadly force. That is because the training of our military has evolved since World War II and we have become better at equipping our soldiers both mentally and physically to do what has to be done. There's still a long way to go in this regard, especially since we're still seeing a high number of PTSD cases coming about due to the war but there is no doubt that our soldiers today are not "hiding and firing their weapons over their heads" to avoid killing the enemy.

It is only a minority of people in civilized nations who enjoy killing and making war. War comes about when those particular kinds of people are in the position to make the decision to start a war. Then these same people never act to stop it once it's begun. The people are left thinking there is no alternative to continue fighting, but in reality there's plenty of opportunity to negotiate an end. But the people who started the war don't see any point in ending it. During the first two years of the American Civil War most people in the north wanted to negotiate with the Confederacy to end it, but Lincoln alone refused to negotiate. He wouldn't stop fighting until slavery was ended, the opposite of what he said was his goal. Sometimes the people will have to revolt in order to bring an stop to it, such as in Russia in 1917 or even in the US during the Vietnam War. In the American Civil War there were riots in northern cities against the war, but Lincoln crushed this dissent ruthlessly. Pacifist groups like the Quakers were subjected to physical torture under orders from Lincoln.

As far as UNCIVILIZED people are concerned, they have completely different temperaments. Savage peoples, such as still exists in Africa, live with killing all their lives and have no reservations about it.
Among savage peoples warfare is a constant state, as is killing anyone around them for any particular reason, including entertainment. Unfortunately the political ideology of "relativism" which infected cultural anthropology some time ago has discarded the fundamental distinctions between civilized and uncivilized peoples, between civilization, barbarism and savagery. Speaking from my experiences in Africa, savagery is not cool or amusing. It is a cultural state of utter sadistic cruelty to others, disregard of anyone or their interests. It is a jungle, and a state not worth living in. It is hell.

There will always be war, whether societies are "civilized" or not. As long as there are human traits such as greed, jealousy, envy, ignorance, etc...there will be conflict between humans. As a "civilized" society we have found no answer to prevent individuals from killing within our society. Therefor it stands to reason that we will never be able to stop killing on a larger scale (war) if we cannot end the basic human traits that cause conflict between individuals.

*Studies showed that in most combat units only 10 to 15 percent of soldiers did all the fighting. That explains why US army combat units had such miserably low combat power. Only elite, all-volunteer units such as the 101st airborne, or the 82nd airborne, Army Rangers, etc. performed with expected combat power. It is of course only these units that media and filmmakers depict.

.

[theaustinescorts]

I agree that today's soldiers are less averse to killing than has been in the past. Maybe it's because of violent video games, the idealization of thuggery in youth culture, or the fact that the volunteer system self-selects out people who are not inclined to kill. But the American special forces guys I've met recently are different from the older veterans I worked with in the past. I don't think today's soldiers grew up with the same moral inhibitions that former generations possessed. I believe this is also reflected in the homicide rate at US military bases today - something which never existed in the past. American culture is in crisis today. There is a current of savagery and barbarism that's tolerated now that would never have been tolerated before, a moral decay, and one manifestation of this is the lack of conscience many of today's soldiers exhibit as compared to the past.

As far as war always being in the future I cannot agree.

In Sam Huntington's seminal work "The Soldier and the State" he explains the that American military personnel possess an institutional belief that war will always be with us because of the dark side of human nature. He explains that the reason they hold this view is because they must demonize their enemies in order to justify their existence, and the violent nature of their work.

However these views are without foundation. In the modern age wars are not started over greed or envy. In the modern age all wars were fought over IDEOLOGY, sincere differences in beliefs over what is right and wrong. American military personnel don't like to admit this to themselves because it makes it difficult to kill someone who is sincerely fighting for a principle they believe in just like you are. It's a lot easier to kill someone if you have convinced yourself that they are evil bad guys who are greedy and envious and therefore deserve to die.

War is an endemic state in primitive societies. In the imperial age wars were fought for the wealth, glory or prestige of elites, but that was a long time ago.

In the modern age wars have been fought over legitimate and sincere disagreements over ideology, or were sparked over misperceptions of security risks and threats. In my opinion bureaucratic and institutional interests bear heavily in this.

In the last two hundred years in the west the start of every war was anticipated with optumism, and a belief that war would be quick, painless and redeeming. When these wars turned out to be otherwise it infused western culture with a hard strain of pacifism.* The fact is none of the wars of the past two hundred years would ever had started if the participants had known beforehand what horrors would be unleased. The addition of the nuclear dimension made that all the more certain.

Eventually war will be a thing of the past, and history as we've known it will be at an end.

Then people who get off on killing their fellow man will have to play out their malice and barbaric tendencies through video games and gansta rapper fantasies.

*One example of this is reflected in public opinion in the US after WWI.
After WWI none of it's lofty goals was achieved, and the American public realized they had fought for nothing. They were so embittered that they were determined to never be conned into fighting in another European war, and were 90 plus percent opposed to joining the fight against Hitler before 1941. Despite this however the Roosevelt Administration instituted the nation's first peace time draft and concluded the Atlantic Charter with Britain [which determined that the US would be at limited war with Germany though un-declared]. After the Pearl Harbor attack there was much enthusiasm for the war effort, but this faded as the months went by and as the public realized that their homes and families were not actually directly threatened either by Japan or Germany. This is the reason why 60% of American men under arms had to be drafted. If they wanted to serve they would have volunteered. The reason why the had to be drafted is because if they had not been they never would have shown up to enlist, and enlistment goals would never have been met, as they would never have been met in the North during the civil war, or in WWI, or in Vietnam.