Militant Contrarian: Michael Scheuer

MICHAEL SCHEUER'S PERSUASIVE, thought-provoking, bracing and incendiary new book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq," fiercely opposes the mainstream consensus view on issue after issue.

Scheuer holds that the U.S. was safer with Saddam Hussein in power, that America's defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan is a foregone conclusion, that federal support for democracy abroad is a terrible policy, that America's alliances are a hindrance, that "freedom fighter" is often a more apt term than "terrorist," that the theory of the Democratic Peace is "silly," that the U.S. should have little concern for civilian casualties in its war against terrorism and that Israel's continued existence isn't worth a single American dollar.

Most compellingly, Scheuer argues that we should take Osama bin Laden at his word: Al-Qaeda is attacking American foreign policies — support for "Arab tyrannies" and Israel and U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East — not America's liberty and way of life.

Scheuer has a penchant for dubious statements, some of which include:
» "There's a clear necessity to have religion in order to have morality."
» After 9-11 we should have "firebombed Kabul and Khandahar, demolished whatever ruins were left, and sown salt over the length and width of both sides."
» Woodrow Wilson was "a human scourge who is not often enough ranked with the twentieth century's top bloodletters."

But the author's background makes it is impossible to dismiss his assertions out of hand: Scheuer, a longtime CIA employee, is a former head of the agency's bin Laden unit and one of the architects of its rendition program. He's also the author of the best-selling "Imperial Hubris" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes."

Scheuer, who teaches at Georgetown, spoke to Express about bin Laden's praise for him, Tora Bora, why the U.S. homeland hasn't been struck since 9/11, President Clinton's "absolutely bald-faced" lies and more. The author will further discuss his book on Monday at Politics & Prose.

» EXPRESS: Osama bin Laden has said, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer." How do you react to that?
» SCHEUER: I've always believed that if you have an enemy, you ought to take him at his word. I've tried to describe to the American people what the enemy claimed their convictions were, and then do a match between what they said they were going to do and what they did — comparing words and deeds. There's a pretty high correlation.

He didn't do me any favors by complimenting me, but I felt that at least that I had done enough of my homework that I was telling Americans in my books what the enemy had said and I think that's what he meant.

You know, they don't want to fight us forever. We're not the main enemy. The main enemies are the Israelis and the Arab tyrannies in the Middle East. And so they would be just as happy if they didn't fight us. That's one of the reasons they're looking for a nuclear weapon, because they think that can make us pull our horns back.

» EXPRESS: Didn't bin Laden say that if he wanted to attack free nations, he'd attack Sweden?
» SCHEUER: "If we hated freedom, we'd attack Sweden first." It's a strange view of the world — when someone blows himself up to try to destroy [Egypt's dictator] Mubarak or [Saudi Arabia's royal family] the Sauds, how can you call that person a freedom-hater?

For the last 15 years we've had very extensive polling in the Islamic world by reputable Western firms. Those polls show that up to 80 percent of Muslims worldwide regard our foreign policy as bin Laden regards it: As an attack on Islam and on Muslims. And the same polls show majorities, sometimes very large ones, in Muslim countries that admire the way we live: parents can educate their children, can find work and speak their minds.

Yet our politicians tell us that they hate us for how we live and what we think. McCain, Obama and Senator Clinton have all signed up for "They hate us for what we are."

» EXPRESS: You write, "Between May of 1998 and May of '99, the CIA presented President Clinton with two chances to capture bin Laden and eight chances to kill him. Mr. Clinton decided against action each time." You elaborate on some of these opportunities in the book, but could you describe them for our readers?

» SCHEUER: Sure. The most disappointing part of my career was that I found that protecting Americans very seldom was the first priority. I describe a couple instances in the book where Clinton decided not to kill bin Laden. One time he was afraid a mosque would get hit by some of the shrapnel from the missile and offend the Muslim world. Another time, bin Laden was visiting some princes from the [United Arab] Emirates, but Clinton decided not to kill him, because we were about to sell $8 billion worth of F-16s to the Emirates.

Generally, the first consideration is: What will the media say? What will the Europeans say? What will Muslim opinion say? Then you get into the economic areas: What will this cost us in selling guns or in buying oil from the Arabs? Then comes, "Gee, maybe we ought to think about protecting Americans."

Bush is the same way. They had a chance almost every day for a year to kill Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, but because they were trying to wine and dine the French and the Germans into joining us in invading Iraq, they let him go. By the time they blew up his camp, he was long gone. Zarqawi is probably responsible for killing far more Americans than Saddam Hussein's military.

That's the kind of thing I don't think the American people realize: The elected people don't use their military to full effect.

» EXPRESS: Do you think Clinton was lying when he angrily proclaimed to Chris Wallace that he did everything he could to keep America safe?
» SCHEUER: I know he was. Absolutely bald-faced lying. He's a reprehensible creature in terms of accepting adult responsibility. I was there, my officers were there and the chances were there.

» EXPRESS: You say that Bush is very concerned with European opinion and media opinion and tries too hard to build alliances. That's the opposite of many people's perception. You argue that America shouldn't support Israel at all and that America would be safer with Saddam still in power. On so many issues, you adopt the opposite of the mainstream consensus view. Are you a contrarian?
» SCHEUER: [Laughs] I suppose I am. What I am more than anything, I hope, is someone who thinks that American interests should come first.

Look at the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis: Not only have we intervened in someone else's religious war, but we're in the really crazy position of supporting both sides. We're the main backer of the Israelis and we're the main protector of the Saudis. That just doesn't make sense to me. And almost none of our population is Jewish or Muslim!

I really get weary of so many of our candidates talking about the founding fathers and what any of them would do in a certain situation. The founders were convinced that the surest way to destroy our republic was to intervene in other people's wars and to go overseas to try to spread democracy. ... At the end of the day, does it really matter to an American if any Iraqi or Afghan ever votes? This whole business of Bush saying that our freedom depends on making sure other people have the same freedoms — that's fatuous.

» EXPRESS: You argue that America's "eventual defeat" is a foregone conclusion in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. Can you admit that there has been great progress in Iraq since the surge?
» SCHEUER: I don't think there has been great progress in Iraq. It's surprising that very seldom does it get mentioned that the surge basically would have had no effect had al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army not stood down and declared a ceasefire. Which makes sense: The Americans are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Sunnis. So, when the Americans are gone, the Shias will be just that much stronger than the Sunnis when the civil war comes.

» EXPRESS: And you write, "At some point the Shia and the Sunni will have a violent reckoning." What do you base that on?
» SCHEUER: 1,000 years of animosity. The most revered figures in Shia Islam were killed by the Sunnis. Retribution is sought on both sides. Zarqawi was just the most strident example of the hatred of Sunnis for Shias.

It's only academics that think these people are going to get along and forget that they have this sectarian schism and [that the Shia] will have no desire for retribution for being dominated, tortured and gassed by the Sunnis for the past 80 years.

» EXPRESS: Why have there been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?
» SCHEUER: There are a couple of reasons. One of the few corners that bin Laden has painted himself into is that each attack has to be larger than the next. They clearly want an attack larger than 9/11, and either they have decided not to stage that yet, or they can't. If they wanted to do the Intifada-type thing of blowing up restaurants and movie theaters and drive-by assassinations, anybody could do that in America. They're not interested in it. They want the big attack.

I don't think they ever believed we would invade Iraq. It was something they hoped for, probably something they prayed for, but it was kind of the Christmas present they never expected. And now, things are going badly for us in the wars and I'm not sure they're not questioning whether they should delay an attack and see how far this goes.

They've described their goals as to bleed us to bankruptcy and spread our forces as thinly as possible. Those two things are pretty much achieved. I don't know if we're bleeding to death, but we're bleeding profusely.

In addition, our political cohesion has also been a target of al Qaeda — to divide us politically, domestically. They're pretty successful. I think they must say, "Wait a minute, even if we can attack them now, wouldn't that just reunite Americans and cause us more problems? Why don't we let this thing unfold as it is?"

» EXPRESS: Tora Bora is a phrase that many Americans are familiar with, but I don't understand what happened there. Can you explain what happened and how it fits into your theories?
» SCHEUER: I was not there, but I was in Washington, supporting the agency officers that were in Tora Bora. We knew bin Laden was in Tora Bora, a mountain range near the Pakistani border: The British had seen him and we had picked up signals intelligence with him talking.

The American generals — rightly — were afraid they'd suffer a lot of casualties if they sent the Marines and the Tenth Mountain Division into the mountains to dig him out. So they decided to subcontract the job to a couple of Afghan commanders.

Well, our people in the field sent the names of these commanders back to CIA headquarters and we did name-traces on them. As it turns out, both of them fought against the Soviets in the war where bin Laden fought. So they were all basically on the same side.

We sent that information back to the field, but the generals were intent on keeping their casualties very low, so they hired people who were always a day late and a dollar short.

They also depended on the Pakistanis to close the border for them, so bin Laden couldn't get out of the mountains and go across the border. The Pakistanis didn't. I don't think they expected Bin Laden to escape, but it was predictable. If we weren't going to do it ourselves, it wasn't going to get done.

I try to point out that the Cold War is over. Proxies are no longer out there to do our dirty work. Our political leadership is still in the Cold War: America calls the shots. That's just not the case. Even now, we look at Pakistan as our proxy. Basically, we're asking Pakistan to do things that are not in their interest to do. It's like a time-warp.

We need to stand up for ourselves — and ourselves first.

» Politics & Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave. NW; Mon., 7 p.m., free; 202-364-1919. (Van Ness-UDC)

Written by Express contributor Tim Follos
Photo by Sam Dorrance/Malaga Productions