Spooky Spooks: Former CIA agent claims "We do not face a global jihadist 'movement'"

Another Ex-CIA-Agent Joins the Army of Western Hirelings And Useful Idiots

* The increasing number of hirelings and useful idiots in the West, of those who would sell their grandmothers dentures for a few petro-dollars, has bloody hands when it comes to disinformation, ignorance and the stupidity that is now so deeply rooted in Western countries.

Here is another ex-spook joining those like Michael Scheuer, hoping to get a free ride on Neville Chamberlines peace train:

“There is NO Global Jihad..”

Glenn L. Carle “was a member of the CIA’s Clandestine Service for 23 years and retired in March 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats.” In “Overstating Our Fears” in the Washington Post, July 13, he says this:

We do not face a global jihadist “movement” but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.

In a circulating e-mail, LTC Joseph Myers, who has served at the Defense Intelligence Agency as the Chief of the South America Division and Senior Military Analyst for Colombia from 1997-2000, responds:

This helps explain to me why we have strategically failed in the current war to identify the enemy and understand and template his threat doctrine and why seven years into the “global war on terror,” we don’t have a global threat model for it.It is because, apparently, key CIA leadership responsible for “global threat” analysis has concluded that we have no “global” threat:

We do not face a global jihadist “movement” but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.

So the underlying conditions of regional, ethnic and internecine struggles within the Muslim community are the problems we face. And the CIA theory for the war on terror is that we do not face a “global jihadist ‘movement.'”

But what information does Mr. Carle marshal to defeat the oppositional theory that we are indeed facing a global jihad? None in this article.

Could his thesis and theory be tested by elaborating the al-Qaida doctrines, such as was done by [Jihad Watch’s] Raymond Ibrahim in his book The al-Qaida Reader or by Stephen Coughlin, formerly of the Joint Staff J-2, and align al-Qaida’s religious arguments against classic Islamic doctrines to show and prove that al-Qaida’s doctrines are deformations and distortions of Islamic law and classical teaching?

Certainly Mr. Carle’s model is simple and recognizable: regionalism and ethnicity, no need then to delve into ideology or religion, but sound intelligence analysis is not simply looking at and evaluating only the information that supports your conclusions.

Has the CIA conducted such a countervailing test and evaluation of their theory of the GWOT? They must have, by Mr. Carle’s assertion. If no, then Mr Carle has no basis to make the claim he is making and undermines his argument that we are only confronting disgruntled bands of Muslims.

Secondly, Mr. Carle reveals a certain ignorance when he conflates the concept of “jihad” with those seeking to do violence to the US homeland. If he truly understood and has studied Islam, Islamic doctrines of warfare, Islamic law and jihad, then the diverse nature of jihad and sources of threat to the American homeland and national security would be clearer — we do not face threats solely from those violent actors.

This is an example of letting policy drive your analysis. Since our policy is attack-focused and oriented on preventing attack threats, we circumvent the analysis of everything leading up to the attack event and do not trace it to its roots.

Thusly we short-circuit our intelligence preparation of the battlefield process. We do not analyze and template the “radicalization process” for what it reveals.

One thing for sure is in national security, if your theory of reality is wrong, then your courses of action to that point are going to be wrong too — or at least imprecise and incomplete.

And he was the NIO for transnational threats. For me, I am glad Mr. Carle is retired. Positions like that require creative thinkers and analysts; what is written here reveals neither.

Sheik yer’mami sez:

Glenn L. Carle believes exactly what Muslims want him to believe. Now why would that be? Did Hesham Islam whisper in his ears?

One gets the impression that the CIA with its long history of ridiculous blunders is not only infiltrated by the Muhammedan mob, but also attracts the most clueless pop-tarts in the country.

Michael Scheuer comes to mind, he probably sees the global jihad also as a bunch of “regional conflicts that involve Muslim people” and how many more are there like that?

It might be a good start to sort out the Muhammedans and do away with the prayer rooms in the Pentagon.

Michael Scheuer’s strange and bizarre views on Israel, jihad:

Fitzgerald comments:

There are all kinds of left-wing people who construct conspiracy theories based on their belief in, and fear of, an all-powerful, all-knowing C.I.A. My fear is the opposite: that there are too many dopes, and lazy dopes who cannot or will not study Islam — it’s just beyond them, all that book-learning, all that trying to take seriously what Muslims are inculcated with, trying to figure out what the Sunnah is, and what the Hadith are, and whether it really matters whether or not Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was nine, because that was so long ago (well, it mattered so much to the Ayatollah Khomeini, that learned theologian, that virtually his first act was to reduce the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine years), and how much more fun just to sneak into cities and meet with clandestine agents, and think that “war” means war in the combat or qitaal sense, and there are no other ways to conduct the “war” on the Infidels, a war or “struggle” that has as its goal breaking down all obstacles to the spread, and then to the certain dominance, of Islam.

We all got a good look at Michael Scheuer, who was — or at least he and his agent and his bookers claim he was – for several years “in charge” of what was naively called “the Bin Laden desk.” He turns out to be terrifyingly missing-the-point dumb (google his name, and “Posted by Hugh” and see what you come up with at this website.

Now comes yet another example. Someone who, I suspect, though he was in the C.I.A. for the fatidic 23 years — 23 years! — as some kind of “expert” on “transnational threats” and the biggest transnational threat of them all, the one that has for 1350 years been transnational, for the Umma knows no bounds, and Believers hardly stop to pay attention to the modern nation-state; for them there are the lands ruled by Muslims, and the lands not yet ruled by Muslims. In the former, remaining non-Muslims must still need lessons, still may need to be put or kept in their place; see how, over the short history of modern Malaysia, the Muslims have step by step increased their numbers, their power, and their ability to reinstute some of the disabilities — disguised of course — that were formerly imposed on non-Muslims, such as the Jizyah (its current form can be found in the Bumiputra system that favors Malaysian Muslims and makes non-Muslims essentially share their own revenues with their Muslim masters).

One wonders what Mr. Carle makes, for example, of the attacks on Buddhists in southern Thailand? Is it one more “discrete” problem, a “national” movement, unconnected to any larger question having to do with Muslims? When Buddhists have their throats slit in southern Thailannd, is this related in any way, or is it unrelated, to the Christian schoolgirls who are decapitated in Indonesia, or the Christians killed, and the churches, burned, in the Moluccas?

When there are Arabs in Afghanistan, are they there because of a “nationalist” impulse? When Pakistanis attack Jews in England, ranting about Zionists, is that because they are responding to a “nationalist impulse? When Arabs and Afghans move into Bosnia to fight Serbs and to make sure that the local Muslims are sufficiently Muslim, is that prompted by “nationalism”? When, Uighurs are found in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, or when Iranians bomb a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, is that because the Uighurs are impelled by “nationalist” motives, and so too are the Iranians?

It is comforting for the carles of this world not to have to bother studying Islam. After all, life is short, and one does not want, after college and graduate school, to go back to school. And we see the same thing with Congressmen, and their staffs, and high-ranking officers, and their staffs, and political figures of every stripe – no one wants, once they have attained power, and lead the lives of hectic vacancy — those endless committee meetings, those photo ops, those conferences, those everything — to sit quietly and try to make sense of something that requires concentration, that cannot be learned from a three-page executive summary — no, nor even a ten-page one — with bullets for easy comprehension.
And it is further comforting to believe that Jihad is merely a matter of “terrorism” which is so much easier to grasp, and to deal with, in the end, than the Money Weapo. TRhat Money Weapon is not a fantasy; Saudi Arabia alone has spent, over the past few decades, close to one hundred billion dollars on mosques, madrasas, tame academics who will toe the Saudi or Muslim party line, and the buying up of an army of Western hirelings, that includes –see Raymond Close — former Western intelligence agents (perhaps Mr. Carle has his own eye on a well-cushioned retirement). If one recognizes the Money Weapon, which is discussed by Muslims as the “wealth weapon” when they list all the instruments of Jihad, such as “pen, speech” (i.e., propaganda on behalf of Islam, campaigns of Da’wa), then one must go further, and offer ways to deal with that Money Weapon. And this, in turn, demands thought, as to how to diminish oil (and gas) revenues of the Muslim members of OPEC, and how to increase the cost to them of Infidel goods and services, and how to encourage the poorer Arabs and Muslims to no longer count on Jizyah (foreign aid) from the West, but rather to go to demand of the Saudis and others a greater share of the oil wealth for fellow Muslims, fellow members of the Umma – a demand that can only increase resentments, all way round, within the Camp of Islam.

Nor has Mr. Carle apparently given much, if any thought, to the situation in the historic center of the West, the countries of Western Europe. He appears not to worry, for in his understanding of the world and of Islam there is little to reason to worry, about campaigns of Da’wa and demograhpic conquest in Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Perhaps he has failed to notice the fear of Western European governments in dealing with their Musilms — a fear that already translates into an inhibited foreign policy, and one that may lead not only to the abandonment of Israel, but to the abandonment of the NATO alliance, if that alliance is turned to anti-Jihad purposes. He may not have noticed all the demands made by Muslims for changes to the legal and political structures and social arrangements of their host countries, where they impose a burden unlike any imposed by any other immigrant group, and do so not in one, or two countries, but in all the countries of Western Europe where they have attained sufficient numbers.

Mr. Carle cannot connect those dots from southern Thailand to southern Sudan to southern Nigeria to London, Amsterdam, Madrid.

Since he cannot, and given that you can’t teach an old dog new etc., it is a good thing for the country that he is retiring. Let’s see if he follows the well-heeled path of Raymond Close, or such former diplomats as James Akins. Watch closely.

Meanwhile, in the real world, more and more people are, despite the idiocy of their political and media elites, studying the texts of Islam on their own, going to Muslim websites, going to MEMRI to see Muslim journalists and clerics, dong their homework.

Doing more homework, I suspect, than is being done by many of those who should be burning the midnight oil in Langley, Virginia.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2008 12:04 AM

One more thing:

And the Soviet Union never had the kind of money that the Arabs have to use to promote their cause. Saudi Arabia alone has spent close to 100 billion dollars on mosques, madrasas, Western hirelings, propaganda of every sort. The Soviet Union, impoverished as it was (it existed before the real oil bonanza, and it never had much of an economy), managed to spend in the West, on subventions to Western Communist parties, and on Willi Munzenberg and Richard Sorge and every other sort of Soviet agent or spy, a grand total of about 7-8 billion dollars, or less than 1/12th what Saudi Arabia alone has already spent. Add in the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Libya, Iran, and so on,and keep in mind that by 2015 the Arabs will have many trillions in their budgetary surpluses if the current price of oil is maintained, and look where some of that money goes. Besides, every Arab deal, with every Westerm bank or investment banking firm or law firm, buys a few more powerful Westerners inclined to look the other way, inclined to pooh-pooh the Muslim threat. After all, they’re making out like gangbusters. Oh, and just look at this Rolex watch my Abu Dhabi client handed me as a token of his affection — for god’s sake, these guys are great, there’s nothing to worry about. Look at this baby. Must have cost him ten, twenty thousand easy. Just handed it to me, just like that. C’mon, these guys are fine. Besides, the more stuff they buy here, the more committed they are to us, the more they don’t want to see us fail. They’d only lose money themselves. So let them buy up whatever they want. Hey, it’s win-win.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 15, 2008 12:54 AM

One thought on “Spooky Spooks: Former CIA agent claims "We do not face a global jihadist 'movement'"”

  1. >>”One gets the impression that the CIA with its long history of ridiculous blunders is not only infiltrated by the Muhammedan mob, but also attracts the most clueless pop-tarts in the country. Michael Scheuer comes to mind

    Joe Grey>>The disgraced Michael Scheuer is exactly who came to mind for me.

Comments are closed.