Tim Russert's Sunday interview of Michael Scheuer

Very interesting excerpts from Tim Russert's Sunday interview of Michael Scheuer, the previously anonymous author of "Imperail Hubris."


MR. RUSSERT: I want to read something else from your book. "....many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions, not values, will get America out of this war.""Actions, not values." What are the actions that created this hatred in the Muslim world?

MR. SCHEUER: Our foreign policy, sir, about six items that bin Laden has isolated...He has created an agenda that appeals to Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or liberals or moderates. Our unqualified support for Israel is one. Our ability to keep oil prices low, enough for Western consumers, is another. Our presence on the Arabian peninsula certainly is another. Our military presence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in the Philippines, in other Muslim countries is a fourth. Our support for governments that are widely viewed as suppressing Muslims--Russia and Chechnya, for example, the Indians in Kashmir, the Chinese in Western China. But perhaps most of all, our policy of supporting what bin Laden and I think much of the Muslim world regards as tyrannical governments from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, whether it's the Al Sauds, the Kuwaitis, the Egyptian government, the Algerian government. He's focused Muslims on those policies and it is a very resonant agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say "unqualified support for Israel," I received an e-mail from a former colleague of yours at the CIA and it said that Scheuer's basic premise is blame the Jews, that the reason we're in this fix is because of our support for Israel.

MR. SCHEUER: No, that's hardly the case. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli problem for so long was just a minor annoyance in the terms of our perception in the Muslim world.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we're losing the war on terror?

MR. SCHEUER: I think without question we're losing the war on terror, sir, not because they are stronger than us but because we resolutely refuse to recognize the motivation of the enemy is grounded so thoroughly in their religion and their perception that American policies are a threat to annihilate that religion. And that's not to say we should sympathize or empathize with their position, but certainly if you're going to destroy your enemy, you better understand what he's about.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Osama is still fully in control of al-Qaeda?

MR. SCHEUER: I think it's wishful thinking to think that he isn't, sir. The one example is the tremendous sophistication and spontaneity of his media machine. There has to be some command and control there. And to imagine that it doesn't--that he's unable to do it is just absolutely incorrect. He's really a remarkable man, a great man in many ways, without the connotation positive or negative. He's changed the course of history. You just have to try to take your fourth-graders' class to the White House visitors' center...

MR. RUSSERT: When you say "great man," people cringe.

MR. SCHEUER: Yes, sir. Absolutely they cringe, but a great man is someone--a great individual is someone who changes the course of history. And certainly in the last five or six years, America has changed dramatically in the way we behave, in the way we travel. Certainly he's bleeding us to death in terms of money. Look at the budget deficit now. Much of that goes against Osama bin Laden.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you see him as a very formidable enemy?

MR. SCHEUER: Tremendously formidable enemy, sir, an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White House. He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter. It's--and again, that's not to praise him, but it is to say that until we take the measure of the man and the power of his words, we're very much going to be on the short end of the stick....

MR. RUSSERT: When you say "politically correct debate," what are you talking about?

MR. SCHEUER: Yeah. What I'm talking about is an American landscape littered with politicians who have dared question our relationship with Israel. No one is advocating dumping Israel as an ally. We have, unfortunately for America, a long history of abandoning allies. But there is a perception in the Muslim world, and I think there's a perception on the part of many Americans, that the tail is leading the dog on this case. And perception, for better or worse, is often reality.

MR. RUSSERT: So what would you do?

MR. SCHEUER: I think we need to take a position with Israel that suits American interests.

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

MR. SCHEUER: Such as perhaps being more insistent on some arrangement with the settlements. Certainly, no one is going to withdraw the protective umbrella of the United States, but at some point, Americans need to look after their own interests first.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you believe that being "tough on Israel" would in any way change Osama bin Laden's agenda or desire to destroy America?

MR. SCHEUER: His agenda is not to destroy America,

Mr. Russert. He simply wants us out of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle East. And I'm not--no, it would not change his agenda, but my point here is that America has a choice between war and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden. And at some point, we need to take actions in our own interests that limit his ability to grow in power and popularity in the Muslim world.

MR. RUSSERT: But if America removes itself from the Middle East, isn't that appeasement to...

MR. SCHEUER: No, sir, I'm not suggesting that we remove ourselves from the Middle East. My book, if anything, is a hawkish statement that we have not nearly applied enough military power or intelligence power to our enemies. There is a great deal--and it's not very popular to say it--but there's a great deal of killing to be done. Some of the actions in the brilliant operation in Fallujah this week by the Marines is the kind of operation we're going to have to undertake, but the point is military and intelligence work by itself is never going to solve this issue. There has to be an economic component. There has to be at least a debate in the United States on the set of policies bin Laden has identified, and we need to make sure that those policies, which have been on autopilot for 30 years, still suit American interests.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that if we are able to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would neutralize some of the Muslim world?

MR. SCHEUER: I think it would. I definitely think it would limit the ability of bin Laden to continue to expand and influence.

Imran Khan and the problems of Pakistan

In recent days Imran Khan has emerged as a real sensable spokes person. First when asked whether Altaf Hussain should have said what he has said in Delhi, Imran defended Altaf's right of free speech though at the same time differed with his views greatly. Then he said that he is ready to form an alliance with any political party on three issues; independent judiciary, independent election commission and independent accountability bureau. And then just yesterday he said that he cannot rule out an alliance with some major political force in the coming elections. All three instances show that he is maturing as a politician.

Freedom of speech and tolerance of a good listener is probably the most important trait that our society needs right now. Anyone must be allowed to say anything and express any views and yet at the same time even if we disagree with his or her opinion, the practice of labelling people as traitors and kafirs must stop here. Neither our religion nor nationalism is weak enough to be demaged by the incorrect views of the few. No matter what one says and what one does, it must be taken in the spirit of a healthy debate. No Pakistani requires a certificate from Nawa-i-Waqt or Tehreek-e-Karkunan-e-Pakistan for his Pakistani nationality. Neither does one require a certificate of being a muslim from Mansora or Dar-ul-aloom Haqania. We must salute Imran Khan for standing for a principle.

None can disagree with the independence of judiciary, election commission and accountability bureau. Even beyond that, they should not only be independent but powerful. And at the same time honest and transparent in their functioning. Political class of this country is the one that has suffered the most in abscense of these independent institutions and a consensus between the popular leadership should not be a difficult task.

And now about the political alliance for the next general elections. Knowing the honest person he is, he must be knowing that his by now is a one man party. A lot needs to be done to convert his party into a main stream political party. Solo flight will not be a wise decision for him and so his decision to go for alliances is a right move at the right time. But keeping in view his past record of political miscalculations, he must be very careful this time around. On the national political scene Imran Khan has three options to form an election alliance; MMA, PML(N) and PPP.

Many say that it is most likely that he will form an alliance with MMA. He has been with them in the past and his political views, specially on issues like Wana operation are closest to MMA. In a recent meeting with him at his residence, one could easily feel how strong he feels about Wana operation. Though his views on Wana and Anti-US sentiment are inline with MMA aggenda, an alliance with MMA will be a mistake on his part. Imran Khan by all means is a liberal muslim who believes in a free and tolerant society. If he makes an alliance with MMA, these issues will come to haunt him in the times to come. Also, MMA is not likely to be a sizable political force in the coming elections, so even in terms of real politik, it will not be a worthy deal.

This leaves him with two main stream political parties PML(N) and PPP. One problem that he will face with both the parties is the US policy of both the parties specially their leadership. Another problem will be the number of seats that he will get as a result of allying with these parties. These being mainstream political parties with populat support and vote bank are not likely to offer him enough seats.

Leaving these differences aside, an alliance with one of the two parties will be a good political move on his part. This will ensure him some strength in the parliament. Also, this will give a few members of his party to experience the governance first hand. And last but not the least, allying with the ruling party will give his party to pursue its aggenda, atleast partially if not fully. A wise decision at this moment will be to pick the winner of next general election and form an alliance with him on minimum common aggenda. The sooner he does this the better it will be. This alliance and his efforts to reform the party and turn it into a political party rather than a one man show will determine his political future.

Democratic Pakistan

Democratic Pakistan

Back to The Future

The opposition parties seem all set to start a nationwide movement against General Musharaf on the issue of uniform. His opponents believe that with the changing geopolitical environment, General’s time is up. But whether now or later, General has to go one day and, if history is anything to go by, with him will go his system too. We can hope that once he is gone the country will revert to the track of relatively legitimate elections and a democratic course as happened in the years following Gen. Zia or even his predecessors. But if there is anything to be learnt from the post-Zia democratic experience, this time around, the political class of the country must be ready to take up the challenges left by the legacy of 5 years of provisional rule. So just when they are gearing up to start a movement against the General, this time it will be wise for them to plan for the times to come.

Partly contributed by the provisional government and partly by the external and internal factors, Pakistan is facing the gravest of the challenges ranging from political to social and foreign policy to economic. Civic society in general and political class in particular must work to realize these challenges and to come up with answers to them. Anyone who comes to power post-Musharaf must have comprehensive plans to counter these challenges. If nothing substantial is done, the entire democratic exercise will become futile and the resulting disillusionment will lead to another military era or a fundamentalist takeover. With the challenges ever mounting and state institution ever failing, Post-Musharaf era might be our last chance to create a democratic Pakistan.

No republic can face a challenge more grave than the challenge to her salvation and security. Never in our history of 55+ years have we been more endangered than we are right now. According to some estimates, there is a military of around a million trained fundamentalists, ready to let lose anytime. To many, this militia has become more strong and consolidated under the watch of this regime. These Jihadis, if not controlled or disarmed, are fully capable of launching a lethal and disastrous civil war. A glimpse of it is already visible in Wana and other areas around Waziristan where the writ of the government is all but lost and Pakistan Army is engaged in a long and bloody combat with foreigners as well as locals. If this war prolongs it can be an ideal pretext of a foreign power to intervene. Anyone who takes over from Musharaf will have to take on these Jihadi’s. No militia should have ever been allowed to be established in Pakistan. The toughest challenge for the next government will be to root out this network. It will require a long and smart battle fought on military as well as political turf. It will be a war on a small segment of our own people and must be fought with utmost care. We should try to win as many hearts and minds we could in these Jihadi outfits while resorting to military offensive against the enemies of state. Government will not only have to combat this militia but it will also have to do it in a way that does not spark anger and agitation within the country.

Another place where the writ of government is losing fast is Balochistan. Balochistan seems to be on the verge of a large secessionist movement caused by years of negligence by the federal governments, unconstitutional rule and lack of communication between various federating units. Calming the situation in Balochistan will be just another mammoth task the next government will have to accomplish. The solution requires a long term strategy rather than the usual approach of cosmetic changes and instantaneous small concessions. Because of her vast natural resources, geographical location and the sheer area, Balochistan is the most vital province for the rapid development of the country. But any development without taking Balochi’s into confidence will be a recipe to disaster. The next government will have to make sure that Balochistan develops rapidly and the fruits of development are being passed to average Balochis. In an already flared up Balochistan, there is no room any more scams like Gwadar land mafia scam. In case of Balochistan, having a representative, democratic government will be a big advantage but this, if not followed up with concrete actions, can slip fast.

Barring security challenges, there are a lot of constitutional issues that the next government will have to deal with. First and foremost, we will have to redefine the nature of relationship between the center and provinces. This will require altering the current scope of authority of both federal and provincial governments. Now the time has come for center to surrender some of her authority to provinces and the parliament will have to devise a mechanism for a gradual transfer of power from center to provinces.

Another issue will be the big question of Army’s role in governance. Only the collective will of the entire political class, from left to right and local to national, can deal with it. It requires an agreement between all political parties that they will never allow a military takeover of the government in any circumstances and will resist it every inch of its way. Sounds utopian – well it is. But that is the only way out unless the ranks and files of Pakistan Army decide that constitution has to be abided by at every cost.

Strong economy and Micro economic stability is termed as the biggest achievement of this regime. Dig a bit deeper and it all sounds sham, as does anything else under this administration. According to the financial wizards of Islamabad, in the last five years, the country has seen an economic growth of sorts that it has never seen before. Foreign exchange reserves have skyrocketed to US$ 12 billion. The stock market has expanded by more than 200% and the GDP growth has been real good. Look at a common man in a village or city and it is an altogether different picture. Rise in foreign exchange reserves was a mere consequence of post-9/11 remittances and credit goes more to US Justice Departments crack down on all Muslims than to the financial gurus of Islamabad. For last 5 years, the industrial growth has been stagnant and the growth of agricultural sector has plunged to as low as less than 3% per annum. The only sector that flourished under this regime has been the property sector. The sector growing mainly on speculation and hype is reaching saturation and we might be heading to a burst of property bubble. This burst, God forbids, can cause billions to thousands of Pakistanis. This might turn out to be the biggest financial scam of this country and planning needs be done to deal with the political and economic aftermath of this potential disaster. Another troubling phenomena of late has been the flight of capital abroad specially Dubai. The next government will have to come up with a comprehensive economic plan to create the investment opportunities, reduce unemployment, and ensure a fair distribution of wealth. It will have to bridge the gap between haves and have-nots that has rocketed to alarming proportions. Also, now the time has come to put in place long term healthcare, social security and education policies.

After years of one man rule, reshaping and redefining the foreign policy in line with the national interest and aspirations rather than those of the man on top, is another task to be dealt with. We need a coherent foreign policy best suited to our economic and geopolitical interests. For 5 decades rigidity has been the hallmark of our foreign policy. We supported Islamic fundamentalists, militancy and Jihadis with utmost fervor and zeal and then post-9/11 we are fighting the war against militancy with same zeal and fervor. For decades, even the normal relationships with Indians were a forbidden fruit and now we are ready to concede anything to have friendly relations with India. If we have to flourish as a nation, this extremism will have to go. We need a pragmatic, realistic and flexible foreign policy vis-à-vis region and world. This is the time for us to decide where we stand on the issues of freedom struggles, terrorism, democracy and human rights on the global scale. We have to set realistic economic and political preferences vis-à-vis outside world and then reshape our foreign policy accordingly. This asks for a debate in all sections of our civic society.
We as a nation will have to rise to the challenges that are facing us, as the great nations have begun their journey to glory confronting the similar challenges. The words that General used in his first speech after takeover seem more true than ever -” we have touched the rock-bottom, we have no other option but to rise and rise shall we”. Will we or we would not – history will be a judge.