Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands:
"Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says
A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an 'avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked' war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are 'on the run' and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.
In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as 'Anonymous', described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would 'inevitably' acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.
He said Bin Laden was probably 'comfortable' commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the 'war against terror' yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.
But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: 'Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are.' He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. 'He walks a very fine line,' he said yesterday.
Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.
The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.
Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: 'His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals.'
Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as 'an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.
'Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq.'"
"Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says
A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an 'avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked' war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are 'on the run' and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.
In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as 'Anonymous', described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would 'inevitably' acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.
He said Bin Laden was probably 'comfortable' commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the 'war against terror' yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.
But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: 'Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are.' He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. 'He walks a very fine line,' he said yesterday.
Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.
The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.
Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: 'His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals.'
Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as 'an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.
'Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq.'"
Comments