Who is feeding both Dem and Rep administrations with stable conclusions?
James Woolsey is the answer!
Spend some time on the following summery & article reviews I've collected around the phenomenal James Woolsey if you want to know who has been in the background feeding both Clinton & Bush administration with input. As long as I understand through readings, his ideas are NOT dictated to him, he seems to use intelligence information coming from different American research institutions, but the final conclusions seems to be originated from him. I can not recognise the presence of any hidden hand behind his ideas. Anyways, what he said and says is VERY stable in time and influences the administration (both republican and democratic) in a great extend.
"Woolsey served as Director of Central Intelligence (1993-95). He has enjoyed a distinguished career, both in public service and in private legal practice. His career in government service has included high-level positions in two Republican and two Democratic administrations.
Woosley is convienced that the war on terrorism (the 4:th World War) was the successor to the three World Wars of the Twentieth Century (the third being the Cold War). It would be long and hard but hopefully not as long as the Cold War.
The former CIA Director then described the "enemy" (those at war with the United States) an enemy we did not fully recognize until after September 11th.
The first consisted of the Islamist Shia that constitute the ruling circle in Iran. Their campaign, begun by the Ayatollah Khomeini, had already lasted nearly twenty-five years and exacted heavy casualties, such as the Beirut bombings (1983) and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1995). Their part in this war, however, depended on politics in Iran, where the Islamist clerical regime was struggling to maintain control.
The second consisted of the fascist regimes, the Baath parties ruling in Syria and Iraq that now combined a fascist party structure, originally secular, with a patina of Islamism. The Iraqi animus dated to the Gulf War a decade ago and, indeed, the Gulf War had never really ended given Saddam's violation of the cease-fire terms, especially his retention of longer-range rockets, chemical-biological weapons, and his search for nuclear capability.
The third comprised Sunni Islamists. Such groups as al- Qaeda had become active against us in the mid-1990's and were a merger in a sense of long-standing movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt) and the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. There was a history of such movements in the Arab portion of the Islamic world, often in reaction against foreign presence: Mongol, Ottoman, European or American. The most recent manifestation had been boosted since 1979 when, after Khomeini's accession in Iran and the battle over the Grand Mosque in Mecca at a cost of 4,000 casualties, the Saudi royals had given much more license and resources to Wahhabi activities abroad. Mr. Woolsey asked the audience to imagine the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabela possessing twenty-five per cent of the world's oil and giving Torquemada and the Inquisition license to spread their doctrines abroad, preaching hate for Jews, Christians and those who disagreed with them.
These three groups of American enemies, somewhat like Mafia families, hate and kill one another, but are also capable of occasionally helping one another vis-a-vis us (e.g., with training, sanctuary, or equipment)."
CHALLENGES TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST // Wye Plantation Policy Conference \\ September 23, 1994
In this very early speech (10years ago!) Woosley clearly stated the general doctrine and policy now applied by Bush. It is very clear what USA has in its head long before 11/9. The message is very clear and inline with the current middle east policy. Already Clinton (no sign of shifting strategy between Clinton & Bush, possibly 11/9 acting as a catalysator) stated clearly that "all" UN resolutions should be respected by Iraq, not just a few number of them as it is usually an acceptable case with Isreal.
It is also important to see that the Middle East democratisation comes into the picture at first in the context of a prerequsit for Middle East (read isreal) peace process. Originally this doctrine tried to address the isreali peace problem, not "people of region being suppressed" problem. It seems that the focus now is on prerequists, aiming to win a war on terrorism, turning temporarily into the main goal.
"Challenges come in many forms, each one capable of undermining or threatening our interests and those of our friends and allies throughout the region: political extremism hiding behind the mantle of Islamic religious fundamentalism, terrorism, and the policies and ambitions of two regimes in particular -- Iran and Iraq -- which have not abandoned their goals of dominating the region, threatening their neighbors, subverting peace, and acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them."
"Islamic fundamentalism has become an all-inclusive term -- sometimes interchangeable with "militant Islam" or "Islamic extremism." But the term is misleading. There is nothing simple nor monolithic about contemporary Islamic political aspirations or intellectual, religious, and philosophical debates about Islam's role within both modern society, and the international system."
"It is difficult to discuss the threat from terrorism and extremism without focusing on the regime in Tehran. It has been over fifteen years since the Shah was toppled. The record since 1979 of Iranian behavior -- to its own people and abroad -- is appalling. At home, repression, violence, and terror. Abroad, efforts to undermine the states in the Persian Gulf, to derail the peace process, and to support Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations and groups operating today from Algeria to Tajikistan. Indeed, Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian government did not create the violence in Egypt, Algeria, or Lebanon, but it does everything in its power to strengthen the hand of extremist forces, to increase the carnage, and to upset any progress toward political reconciliation within these countries or peace between them and their neighbors."
"As threatening as this military program is, our biggest concern is in countering Iran's aggressive pursuit of development of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has turned to suppliers in both the East and West, using intermediaries to purchase technology clandestinely. We continue to pay close attention to Iranian efforts to purchase dual-use technology which increases the difficulty we have in uncovering Iran's ultimate intentions and programs. In addition, Iran continues to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons. We suspect that Iran is also hiding a biological weapons program as well."
"Iran is further working to obtain delivery systems. Because of its inability to obtain missiles from the West, Iran has looked to Asia -- first to China for missiles and for nuclear-related technologies, and now also to North Korea for ballistic missiles. Containing Iranian ambitions will require perseverance persistence, determination, and patience. It will also require strong cooperation among our friends and allies, not only in the Middle East but beyond. As President Clinton has said, "We call upon all of our allies to recognize the true nature of Iranian intentions and to help us convince Tehran that we will not tolerate rogue behavior."
"Because of Iraq's ambitions, policies, and behavior, the president has made clear his stance: we seek full Iraqi compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions."
"The fact that Iran and Iraq fought a long and bitter war, and that they are both competing for power and influence in the Persian Gulf is cold comfort. These two regimes are united in their opposition to the peace process, in their willingness to use terrorism, in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and in their desire to eliminate any outside powers which could thwart their ambitions. The world cannot afford to let its guard down against these regimes."
Full article here.
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ // Congressional Hearing \\ MARCH 10, 1999
This is the most important statement by James Woolsey on the importance of having a "free" Iraq. His insistence on importance of focusing in iraq is long before 11/9.He is very critical to the way Clinton administration (but not Clinton himself) handled the iraqi isuue:
"Mr. Pollack, who is apparently to be in charge of the Iraqi account. Perhaps the Administration needs, in order to stay focused, to post a sign on the wall of the White House Situation Room: "It's the Regime, Stupid.""
There are many interesting parts specially regarding "democracy in middle east" and "the relation between iran and iraq shia".
"Yes, culture and experience with democracy are both different in the Mid-East than they are in the West, but Asian democracies were also rare to non-existent until after World War II. Now we have India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Mongolia. And until rather recently Latin America was a dark forest of dictatorships, relieved by only a few flowering democracies such as Costa Rica; now change across the entire continent has left Fidel Castro virtually alone as the remaining dictator. Democracy is not a hot-house plant that can grow only in fifth century B.C. Athens or eighteenth century Virginia. Where are those experts who told us yesterday that democracy was incompatible with Asian culture or with Latin American culture? Telling us today that democracy won't work in the Middle East? "
......
"It is a major mistake to blame Islam, or Shia Islam, for the state of affairs in Iran today. The problem is rather that a few men, in the government and among Iranian clerics, have chosen terror to be a major tool of the Iranian State. Just as it would be unfair to tar the entire Catholic Church of the time with the outrages of the fifteenth century Spanish Inquisition under Tomas de Torquemada and some of his fellow Dominicans (whose close partnership with Ferdinand and Isabella has some parallel to the collaboration today between the hard-liners in the Iranian government and a portion of Iran's clerics), so it would be most unfair to blame the majority of Iran's Shia clerics for the outrages of those who have brought about and who implement the policy of terror. As Iran's last presidential election and very recent local elections have also shown, it would also be a major mistake to exaggerate the current popularity of the wilayat in Iran, although it does still control the elements of state power."
.....
"David Wurmser briefly but expertly surveys the history of Shi'ism in Iraq in Tyranny's Ally. He outlines why the Iraqi Shia are far more a threat to Iran's wilayat than they are to Saudi Arabia. This was demonstrated in the spring of 1991, when the Iraqi Shia revolted, Saudi Arabia urged us to assist them (as then-Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has recently set forth), and Iran abandoned them. We, sadly, took a path parallel to Iran, with, to this point, eight years of tragic consequences. Wurmser concludes, I believe correctly, that a "free Iraqi Shi'ite community would be a nightmare to the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran."
....
"In my judgment the far sounder approach under current circumstances is to declare solidly for democracy in Iraq and to give it all support short of actual invasion by American ground forces. We should also, I believe, take steps to reduce our, and the rest of the world's, long-term dependence on Mid-East oil. But that may be a subject for another day."
Full speech here.
The Wild, Wild West // Wall Street Journal \\ February 22, 2002
This article mainly adresses Europe acting as a show stopper for US.
Read specially his talentful american way of explaining the status que, through telling an old western movie, part starting with:
"Life is imitating art here -- the particular piece of art being the classic Western of half a century ago: High Noon."
....
"That's not being impulsive -- it's deciding to be a shepherd instead of a sheep. Second, like the U.S. today in moving against the axis, the marshal in High Noon was trying very hard to be multilateral -- he desperately wanted a posse. He just had no takers. What the marshal was unwilling to do was to give up doing his duty just because everyone else found excuses to stay out of the fight.
Go on home to your kids, Europeans. Go on home to your kids. And then start praying that when it's over we won't drop our badge in the dirt."
Full article here.
TERROR AND TEHRAN // Frontline \\ February 23, 2002
This is a very interesting interview about iran. Note his strong statement against attacking Iran, although one never knows what he mean by "current situation", situation in Iran, in USA or in Middle East.
"I have no problem with this at all. I think certainly the government can trump up a big demonstration and get people chanting "Death to America." But the people of Iran are a sophisticated people, they're a well-educated people. There's a large diaspora in the West. There are a lot of communications in and out on the Internet and otherwise. They fully understand that we have nothing against the Iranian people. It's the [ruling clerics] who manage the terror and are working on the weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles and all the rest..."
"What do you say to the Iranian who makes the point that Saddam Hussein was a real close friend of the United States for some time, and got the capacity to do a lot of damage in Iran through that friendship?
I would say they are partly correct. What happened, of course, back in the 1980s was as a result of the Iranian hostage-taking, which was taken very personally by all Americans. The hatred for the Iranian government in this country was very, very strong. And well into the Iran-Iraq war, the United States did provide some assistance, intelligence mainly, to Saddam Hussein. In retrospect, I think that was a bad decision. But the Iranian government at the time never made any kind of statement about the United States, or working with us or dealing with us, other than "Death to America." And they really shouldn't have expected that we were going to do anything friendly to them, and they shouldn't have expected that we would regard ourselves as anywhere other than at odds with the Iranian government, which the Reagan administration at the time did and chose to provide some assistance to Saddam, it's true. In retrospect, it's a bad decision.
What, if anything, do you think that the United States can or should do to help open up a bit more of that democratic breathing room and reform momentum in Iran?
I think we should maintain, at best, a very cool and correct and distant relationship to the mullahs who dominate the power instruments, at least, of the government. I think we should criticize them strongly when they do such things as put intelligence operatives and Revolutionary Guard personnel and the like into Afghanistan. And if those people cause difficulties in Afghanistan, we should dispatch them quickly. But under no circumstances I can conceive under the current situation should we get involved in military activity against Iran itself. That would drive the reformers and the students into the arms of the mullahs, and that's the last thing we want."
"I think the country that is first and foremost in our sights, and should be, is the regime is Iraq, because I think the Iranian mullahs are going to lose. I don't know whether it's going to be a matter of a few months or a few years or a number of years, but they're on the wrong side of history. They're going to end up on the ash heap of history. The students, the young people, the women, reformers, the brave newspaper editors, the brave members of the Shia clergy who are opposed to the Velayat-e faqih [rule of the Islamic jurists], those people are going to win. And we ought to do everything we possibly can to help them. But overtures to deal and make nice with the Iranian government -- we've made a number of those, and they failed."
Full article here.
THE COMMING REVOLUTION IN IRAN // Wall Street Journal \\ July 29, 2002
The article about iran as a driven force of islamic movement being the origin of all problems in past two decades.
"President Khatami has shown himself to be at best the ruling mullahs' poodle. At worst he is a coldly cynical participant in a good-cop-bad-cop act designed to give the Europeans an excuse to do business with Iran in spite of the fact that it exports weapons of mass destruction and sponsors terrorism."
"If we maintain what President Bush rightly describes as moral clarity, we can help Iran take a major step toward changing the face of the entire Middle East. If theocracy dies in Iran as it has died in Afghanistan, then its remaining advocates -- the Islamist terrorists and Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis -- will be substantially weakened."
Full article here.
JAMES WOOLSEY ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM // Lecture in "the Pitcairn Trust" \\ October 10, 2002
This is a very good summery of Woosley's vision.
Abroad, Woolsey strongly recommended against military action against Iran. He cited popular demonstrations (students chanting "Death to Taliban in Kabul and Tehran") and growing
unrest with the Islamist mullahs, including the defection of prominent Ayatollahs from a regime that violated the historic principles of Shi'ite Islam. Woolsey concluded: "We can't necessarily count on revolution soon in Iran but nothing would be stupider than to move militarily and drive everyone into the arms of the fanatics."
Iraq, however, a fascist enemy, fully deserved to be the next target.
Full lecture here.
Hajir 7:01 PM
