The Scheuer Betrayal

[Nathan Hale]

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Bin Laden chief and supposed supporter of Ron Paul's has written an oped in the NY Daily News today (Sunday 9/9/07) that denounces America's failure to saturate the Afghanistan theater of war with troops. He says that we needed more boots on the ground in order to win. But most important, he says the following:

"And as for those now aspiring to the presidency, I don't hear a single voice - Democrat or Republican - claiming that we should have wielded far more force [in Afghanistan]."

Not such a great friend after all, methinks.

[JoshLowry]

Not much of a betrayal...

Scheuer dropped Ron's name in a CNN interview within the last 2 days. He is definitely pro-Ron but would be best off to not mention it in every single interview.
Besides for letters of marquee and reprisal, I don't recall Dr. Paul hammering on how we didn't use enough force going into Afghanistan.

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron Paul agreed with going to Afghanistan. That IS where the terrorists were, and are still safely hiding. Bush and Co. pulled most the troops from there to go into Iraq, which was not where the war was. I think Scheuer is right on knowing were we should have been and why.

[axiomata]

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Bin Laden chief and supposed supporter of Ron Paul's has written an oped in the NY Daily News today (Sunday 9/9/07) that denounces America's failure to saturate the Afghanistan theater of war with troops. He says that we needed more boots on the ground in order to win. But most important, he says the following:

"And as for those now aspiring to the presidency, I don't hear a single voice - Democrat or Republican - claiming that we should have wielded far more force [in Afghanistan]."

Not such a great friend after all, methinks.
Paul never has claimed that we should "saturate the Afghanistan theater with troops." He was of course against relocating those troops to Iraq, but that is slightly different.

They both do agree that the Iraq War took resources away from the real fight in Afghanistan and in my opinion, there currently is not a stronger voice out there that we have to reach most military minded conservatives.

His job is not to get Paul elected, it's to tell people what he knows about bin Laden. It just so happens that what he knows is the same platform that Paul is running on.

To call this a betrayal does more damage to the campaign than what Scheuer said in that one quote.

[dseisner]

I think what he's saying is accurate. RP didn't support more ground troops in Afghanistan. I think if you ask him, he'll say we had plenty but just didn't do the job they were supposed to do.

[Shellshock1918]

Ron's always said " go to war, fight it and win it." When we went to war in Afghanistan, we didn't fight to win. Plus I'm sure Paul would hire Scheuer for a cabinet position.

[nullvalu]

What he said is exactly true.. It would have been a betrayal if he said there isn't a candidate with the right foriegn policy in mind.

[angelatc]

Did we declare war on Afghanistan?

[nullvalu]

Did we declare war on Afghanistan?

No

[SeanEdwards]

Scheuer is fundamentally right about one thing. He understand the proper role of military force. Military power should be used to kill and destroy threats to the safety of the nation, not to paint schools, or open polling places. War is not a photo op. It's brutal mass murder. If you don't want to do brutal mass murder, then what you have is not a task for the military.

If we'd had a Curtis Lemay running this effort, the 'war' would have been over long ago.

[katao]

Don't worry - Scheuer is getting tons of pub and his message is far more in line with RP than any other candidate.

[mesler]

This title is misleading. He never pledged allegiance to RP and his views, so there was no betrayal.

[max]

YOU CANNOT CONQUER THE AFGHANS

Alexander tried...and failed

The Brits tried...and failed

The Soviets tried and failed


It is the harshest terrain in the world and these badasss know the caves like the back of their hand

More US troops would only mean more targets....Numerical superiority in a guerrilla setting is not necessarily an advantage..

and besides...Osama had nothing to do with this phony video (Grecian Formula Muslims..LOL!) nor did he do 9/11.....but i digress

[Tuck]

He is right though, none of the candidates have mentioned anything about placing more troops in Afghanistan to search for UBL. If anybody has a good insider at the Paul campaign, make sure to pass along the word ;)

[Hook]

Scheuer doesn't agree with everything Dr. Paul says. They just happen to have overlapping beliefs on Iraq. So he hasn't betrayed anyone, just giving his opinion.

[Captain Shays]

Listen to Michael Smerconish intervew Ron Paul. Smerconish has been on a tare about none of the candidates wanting to go in a kill bin Laden. When he had Ron Paul on he asked specifically what he would do and Ron Paul railed about not doing enough to go and get bin Laden.

Unfortunatly a couplle of weeks later during one fo the Democrat debates Obama made that comment about going into Pakistan if necessary to get bin Laden and Smerconish said that of all the candidates Obama is closest to his idea of what we should do relative to getting bin Laden. I sort of agree.

We need to get that SOB and kill him and I want a president who is dedicated to doing just that. And, I want Ron Paul to start sounding strong on the issue of national defense. I know he is strong, but he hasn't articulated what he will do to make us stronger and safer well enough to convince others.

He needs to come out and say he will get bin Laden. Build that missile defense system. Build a national cival defense system. Activate the militia. Arm the people well. Make it so that nobody from terrorist countries can come into America unless they're naked. Something. Anything. I understand that the debate moderators won't allow him the time, but he needs to convince Republicans that he's strong on national defense with a sound, logical, Constitutional plan.

[saku39]

If we'd had a Curtis Lemay running this effort, the 'war' would have been over long ago.

I respectfully disagree.

LeMay was about as nuts as they come. He was one of the original cold warriors that advocated US hegemony just like the neo-conservatives of today do.

The only difference between LeMay and the current people in charge is that LeMay would bomb everything in sight and the civilian death toll would be much, much higher-- which would contribute to the already burning hatred towards the US.

Bombing people isn't going to stop the terrorists. They are a decentralized enemy, with no state, and no centralized leader, spread across the globe.

If we do what Dr Paul is saying, get out, keep our military in a high defensive mode here and not interfere in other countries we'll be fine.

Of course, we still have to kill Bin Laden. I think the letters of Marque and Reprisal is a great idea and it would save us lots of lives.

[Kuldebar]

The Scheuer Betrayal?

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Mike Scheuer and Scott Ritter are two of the best intellectual allies we have in the specific issues pertaining to the Terrorism and Iraq and Iran situation. Neither one needs to directly endorse Ron Paul.

Mike Scheuer, in particular, has to maintain some professional neutrality as an expert. He can not do so if he starts advocating Ron Paul's candidacy during his appearances.

Proving too many people that facts and history support Ron Paul is far better than just showing that one man supports Ron Paul. Mike Scheuer is doing the former very effectively.

[SeanEdwards]

I respectfully disagree.

LeMay was about as nuts as they come. He was one of the original cold warriors that advocated US hegemony just like the neo-conservatives of today do.

The only difference between LeMay and the current people in charge is that LeMay would bomb everything in sight and the civilian death toll would be much, much higher-- which would contribute to the already burning hatred towards the US.

Bombing people isn't going to stop the terrorists. They are a decentralized enemy, with no state, and no centralized leader, spread across the globe.

If we do what Dr Paul is saying, get out, keep our military in a high defensive mode here and not interfere in other countries we'll be fine.

Of course, we still have to kill Bin Laden. I think the letters of Marque and Reprisal is a great idea and it would save us lots of lives.

Lemay was a nut. I agree. But war is an insane enterprise. I pretty much agree with Scheuer that war should be exceedingly violent and destructive. War is an instrument of terror. It doesn't accomplish the goal of teminating hostilities unless it terrifies the 'enemy'.

The problem is that our national leadership doesn't understand this at all. They throw our military power around without the strategic understanding of what military power can do, or what it can't do. They seem to literally believe that our military personnel can 'win hearts and minds', which has to be the most ridiculous notion ever conceived. Do these people think military training is a sort of charm school?

War and occupation was never a good response to the challenge of dealing with these covert terrorist organizations. A better response would have been the one Paul and you have described, where we authorize targeted attacks against what amount to modern pirates, and just strike them wherever they are at. Occupation and nation building should never have been any part of this anti-terror operation.

If there was a state that was directly using these terrorist groups to attack us, then perhaps it would be appropriate to formally declare war on that state, and then send the Lemays after them until the enemy state surrenders. That's how you win a 'war'. You don't win wars by making your strategic objective defacement of public monuments and playground construction.

[Qiu]

To be fair, I don't recall ever hearing Mr. Paul ever talk about increasing troops in Afghanistan during the debates. He's said something along the lines of "I voted to get the Al Qaeda" but that's just about it.

In my opinion, Scheuer is one of Ron's greatest allies and a leading expert who repeatedly vindicated Paul's arguments.

[TexMac]

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Bin Laden chief and supposed supporter of Ron Paul's has written an oped in the NY Daily News today (Sunday 9/9/07) that denounces America's failure to saturate the Afghanistan theater of war with troops. He says that we needed more boots on the ground in order to win. But most important, he says the following:

"And as for those now aspiring to the presidency, I don't hear a single voice - Democrat or Republican - claiming that we should have wielded far more force [in Afghanistan]."

Not such a great friend after all, methinks.He has always said that. It's in Imperial Hubris. He and Ron just don't agree about what to do about it.

[saku39]

I pretty much agree with Scheuer that war should be exceedingly violent and destructive. War is an instrument of terror.

War, by nature, is violent and destructive. The problem I have with the violence and destructiveness is that we don't know exactly who are and who aren't terrorists. Their guerilla warfare tactics make it impossible to make the distinction and it increases the probablity of civilian death which hurts not only the civilians, but as as well as it incites civilians into becoming terrorists.


It doesn't accomplish the goal of teminating hostilities unless it terrifies the 'enemy'.

But you can't terrify this enemy. They are ALREADY prepared to die. To die for Islam is to go to "Paradise." In their eyes, if civilians die it's because it was Allah's will. If their families die, it just will just ensure that they will work that much harder to avenge them and if they die in the process-- It's ok, they're going to "Paradise."


The problem is that our national leadership doesn't understand this at all. They throw our military power around without the strategic understanding of what military power can do, or what it can't do. They seem to literally believe that our military personnel can 'win hearts and minds', which has to be the most ridiculous notion ever conceived. Do these people think military training is a sort of charm school?

You're speaking the truth and it's a complete tragedy that it seems everybody but the people in charge demonstrate that they know it.


War and occupation was never a good response to the challenge of dealing with these covert terrorist organizations. A better response would have been the one Paul and you have described, where we authorize targeted attacks against what amount to modern pirates, and just strike them wherever they are at. Occupation and nation building should never have been any part of this anti-terror operation.

I agree completely.


If there was a state that was directly using these terrorist groups to attack us, then perhaps it would be appropriate to formally declare war on that state, and then send the LeMays after them until the enemy state surrenders.

I agree with you on that but only in regards to 9/11. We should be going after the people that planned, supported and financed 9/11. We've lost sight of that goal. Instead, quite stupidly, I might add, we've been at war in Iraq.

Also, I've got no problem with bombing so long as it's directed correctly. What I have a problem with is non-discretional carpet bombing. LeMay's approach, with a decentralized enemy spread over thousands of miles would not work. Besides, I see him as the kind of guy that would advocate dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. I wouldn't want somebody with those ideals in charge of anything.

As far as I could tell, Afganistan was the only state out there that fit the bill as an enemy state. You could make a case for Saudi Arabia as well, but going to war in the Holy Land would only make matters worse. (It would be the jihad on a level unlike anything ever seen on this planet. Without question, it would be WW3.)

Getting back to Afganistan-- Why we pulled out of Afganistan, let Bin Laden escape, and then went to war in Iraq and are currently inciting Iran MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL.

[Cowlesy]

Read Scheuer's book "Through Our Enemies' Eyes". It's an eye-opening book.

In the Preface he quotes Osama Bin Laden, and Abraham Lincoln ---- a huge dichotomy right?

God Almighty hit the United States at its most vulnerable point. He destroyed its greatest buildings...I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, may God's peace and blessing be upon him. --- Osama bin Laden, 7 October 2001

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, but one must be wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. --- Abraham Lincoln, September 1862

--- I almost wished he would have used a G.W. Bush to illustrate that point.

[billv]

You can't fault the guy for not knowing every one of each candidates positions on everything.

[Cowlesy]

I actually don't want him to endorse Ron Paul on TV. They'll just bucket him in the Paul camp of nut-jobs.

Scheuer does the American public a service each time he gets on TV and attempts to make people think critically about world conflicts. It's almost preferable he just keep planting those thinking seeds in people's brains, rather than risking blatantly endorsing Ron Paul and have people immediately tune him out like a true sheeple.

[jj111]

Ron's always said " go to war, fight it and win it." When we went to war in Afghanistan, we didn't fight to win. Plus I'm sure Paul would hire Scheuer for a cabinet position.

Ron also said, Congress should declare the war. Congress did not issue a declaration of war on Afghanistan. If anything, what was authorized was a limited police action to go after "al Queda" (if you believe in "al Queda").

[dmitchell]

Please, Scheuer is a tremendous ally to Ron Paul and deserves a high-level post in Ron Paul's cabinet. There is no betrayal here in any sense at all.

[austinphish]

i read that same Op/ed and was wondering how he could say there were no Presidential candidates worth supporting (or something to that effect).

WTF - help us out Scheur, we are in a up-hill battle here for press coverage.

[Paulitician]

i read that same Op/ed and was wondering how he could say there were no Presidential candidates worth supporting (or something to that effect).
That's not even remotely close to what he said. Stop misrepresenting him.

[SeanEdwards]

[COLOR="Navy"]

But you can't terrify this enemy. They are ALREADY prepared to die.


I would say that they can be terrified, but that you may not be willing to become the monster that would terrify them. Clearly, you're no Curtis LeMay. ;) Feel free to take that as a compliment if you like, as most people do tend to regard LeMay as a devil. But then, as a book I once read said, "even the powers of heaven find it necessary to employ devils."

Did you know that LeMay once stated that if the allies had lost the war, that he would be tried as a war criminal? No doubt that's true, but I find it interesting that LeMay would admit it, and do what he did anyway. He was a very scary fellow.

[MicroBalrog]

YOU CANNOT CONQUER THE AFGHANS



There are no unwinnable wars.

[syborius]

Ron's always said " go to war, fight it and win it." When we went to war in Afghanistan, we didn't fight to win. Plus I'm sure Paul would hire Scheuer for a cabinet position.

lets get a few facts straight about the whole mess. Both Afghanistan and Iraq was planned LONG LONG AGO, starting in 1998 with the Iraqi liberation legislation, as Paul has mentioned. We needed Afghanistan logistically to go into Iraq, and it was the weaker target, all on the path to Tehran, which is the golden egg at the end of the tunnel for the globalists This was the plan from the start, it has always been the plan, and it will remain the plan until its derailed. To think of Afghan as a separate thing from Iraq is absolutely foolish and a distraction. All of it was planned coordinated, and organized LONG ago, and had ZERO to do with terrorists on "monkey bars" If someone else says but but Al Qaeda I will slit my wrists. We created Al Qaeda. End of story.

[fj45lvr]

There are no unwinnable wars.

There has never been a good war or a bad peace (benjamin Franklin)

I do believe that as a clash of ideology/culture of what makes society "good or evil" based on the one vantage (Islamist or Average American) that there is no "winning" (reminescent of cartoons where termites or pests pop out of the woodwork to constantly bedevil even when all is thought to be secure).

.....you may kill many and kill often but that will only go to reinforce the inherit perception of the EVIL from EITHER side of the Conflict as they view their respective "enemy". So as we kill more we only make true their claims of our evil ways in America as wickedly immoral, brutal, selfish and imperialist by nature (opposite of the triumphed "sanctity" of a closely knit Islamist society supposedly advocated by their struggle)....at the same time as they kill it only makes true our claims of their evil ways as brutal, cold blooded murderers seeking Islamic domination and annilation of we the infidels. attacks are made in both the west and in the east.

I tend to believe the rich will give up before the poor....because they are more likely to have a constant stream of new dreams and aspirations overcome a tiresome struggle to either/or irradicate or beholden the pesky islamist....that they really only suffer with to get some CRUDE.

[syborius]

Ron's always said " go to war, fight it and win it." When we went to war in Afghanistan, we didn't fight to win. Plus I'm sure Paul would hire Scheuer for a cabinet position.

lets get a few facts straight about the whole mess. Both Afghanistan and Iraq was planned LONG LONG AGO, starting in 1998 with the Iraqi liberation legislation, as Paul has mentioned. We needed Afghanistan logistically to go into Iraq, and it was the weaker target, all on the path to Tehran, which is the golden egg at the end of the tunnel for the globalists This was the plan from the start, it has always been the plan, and it will remain the plan until its derailed. To think of Afghan as a separate thing from Iraq is absolutely foolish and a distraction. All of it was planned coordinated, and organized LONG ago, and had ZERO to do with terrorists on "monkey bars" If someone else says but but Al Qaeda I will slit my wrists. We created Al Qaeda. End of story.

[MicroBalrog]

There has never been a good war or a bad peace (benjamin Franklin)

I do believe that as a clash of ideology/culture of what makes society "good or evil" based on the one vantage (Islamist or Average American) that there is no "winning" (reminescent of cartoons where termites or pests pop out of the woodwork to constantly bedevil even when all is thought to be secure).


IS our military goal to "conquer Afganistan"? Is our goal to "eradicate" 1 billion Muslims? I was notaw are of either.

[peruvianRP]

Did we declare war on Afghanistan?

No, we went to get the Terrorist that planned 911. and RP voted for it.