tv Scott Horton Enough Already CSPAN August 29, 2021 4:07am-4:33am EDT
national security analyst vice president for global studies and fellow at new america author of the new book the rise and fall of osama bin laden. want to remind everyone peter's book is available online and at your local bookstore. we also want to thank all of our viewers. now this virtual program is adjond authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> scott horton is the director of the libertarian institute for the editorial director of antiwar.com and the author of this book, enough already. time to end the war on terrorism. mr. horton it is 20 years since 911. u.s. troops in afghanistan what is your reflection on
that? >> well, as far as the war in afghanistan goes we never should have thought it through the whole war on terrorism should have been over and christmas 2001 at the w bush administration had focused their efforts on either the extradition of al qaeda to america or another or targeting the guilty the very small number of al qaeda fighters hiding out in afghanistan. instead he wrote a regime change that did not attack us. and then a 20 year war against all of its attendees an attempt to prop at new government up. now for 20 years they have admitted what has been true which is the war is a loss and the taliban has one. they never could have won that war. now the proof is in the pudding. the critics were right all along. and the proponents were wrong. twenty years later the u.s. is pulling out of afghanistan. when you think the results would be?
>> i think is going to be real trouble for the parties that america has supported in power for all of this time. and iraq or two they fought for the super majority. they kicked america right out the students we are done winning the war for them. the government created in baghdad is still the government of iraq. in afghanistan the situation is different. essentially been attempting a coalition of minorities on the morality of the country the 40% of the population and they have essentially no political representation in their government. i've been sworn to resist american occupation since they started fighting in 2004 -- 2005. they are going to take over the country almost certainly. that means there is going to be hell to pay for those who've been propped up in power by the united states so
far. it would be great if they could negotiate some kind of peaceful resolution in the form of a new government there. but frankly i expect the worst brick. >> in your book, enough already you described 911 as blowback, what you mean by that? >> well blowback is a term coined by the central intelligence agency after i run and 1953. it means not just consequences it means long term consequences of secret foreign policy so when they come back to haunt the united states the american people do not understand the real context of what is going on. with the iranian revolution of 1979 and ayatollah calling at the great stay tuned and burning the american flag, the american people did not know the cia had overthrown the government of iran 25 years before this was the consequence of that. that same year in 1979 jimmy carter on july 3 had a
fighting offering the cia in afghanistan. in an attempt to provoke the soviets into invading that country in the words of the carter administration the purpose of this was to give the soviets their own vietnam a hopeless long term no-win war that breaks the bank to destabilize the country. we did that. through the reagan years this policy continued on include not just back in the afghan tens of thousands of what were called the arab afghans. the army not just arabs but muslims from the philippines, the united states, especially the middle east who all traveled to afghanistan to help fight against the soviet union. then went america permanently occupied saudi arabia and preparation for iraq or one and then permanently throughout the 1990s and the rest of the 20th century and
continued to bomb iraq from those in saudi arabia, that is what caused osama bin laden and their group to turn against their former patrons, the united states of america. it was first and for monthly basis in salary while used to bomb iraq in the 1990s pre-support for israel the occupation of palestine at that time lebanon. support for dictators around the middle east such as the king and saudi arabia and el presidente of egypt. seat pressure on those nations to keep production high and oil prices artificially low to subsidize our economy at their expense. and bin laden criticized bin laden for turning a blind eye on russia, china, india and pakistan for their wars and suppression of muslims. the bill clinton government supported the al qaeda forces
in bosnia, and co- seville, and chechnya. even that they've been attacking us all through the 1990s. they're picking up the tabs for russia's war at the same time cia were back with the rebels again. in fact after september 11 bill clinton, and brad sherman all three said something to the effect of how could these muslims attack us after all we have done for them? the reality was the occupation of saudi arabia had not ceased. the bombing of iraq could not cease. the dictator ship had not ceased. the democrats had failed to bribe off these al qaeda terrorists. all of their motives to attack the united states were still on. and importantly it was not they were just angry about the policy they had a strategy. a strategy which provoked the united states into doing something >>.
rules for radical and a symmetric action including terrorism for the action is in the reaction of the opposition. in this case okay does not try to get america to turn around and run away, they did not think that would work. they are trying to provoke a full-scale invasion of afghanistan two they could replicate the war help them fight against the soviets in the 1980s. to bog us down in them than lawton's words to lead us to bankruptcy to force the american empire out to the long laying on the hard way. magazine in 2010 when bin laden was still alive. he said when bush won the election of 2000, my father was so happy. this is the kind of president he needs one that will attack and break the country.
he said in clinton's time sent cruise missiles after my father and got away. but he been in afghanistan for ten years you still do not have them. in clinton's time america was smart. not like the bull that runs after the red scarf. it's a very important point because of bret stephens of the "new york times" for example just a couple of months ago wrote an article criticizing withdrawal from afghanistan citing bin laden's taunts that america is the tiger they will turn around and run away forgive them a truck bombing or two. bret stephens is one of the opinion writers of the new york time said this is proof america must pay and continue to double and triple down forever and ever. these were simple taunts by bin laden. this is exactly the reaction are trying to get out of brett stevens and the american establishment.
america needs to stay at war until we literally can't anymore because our dollar is completely destroyed in her empire completely broken like what happened in the soviets. >> subtitles how to and the war on terrorism. how do you define that war in what state did you see it started? >> well, the real war on terrorism began in 2001 after september 11. of course the cia had efforts against al qaeda around the middle east in the years leading up to that. but in essence, the war on terrorism has been a bait and switch. from the very beginning the bush had been a straight inflated belt -- center foreign minister to warn the americans of an impending attack. and then from there they immediately conflate to bin laden and his of radicals with saddam hussein the atheist dictator of iraq. a land where the word no al
qaeda members were there never been a suicide bombing in the entire history of the country. they use the fear of terrorism and the fear of a completely phony, fake, dishonestly claimed alliance between saddam hussain and osama bin laden to life the people of the united states into that war. and from there, by the way the former chief of the bin laden unit said if afghanistan was all bin laden ever once had, america going to iraq to attack what bin laden called the socialist infidel, saddam hussein was a hope for an unexpected gift to bin laden. by taking the side of the shiites there america drove the population into the arms of the bin laden and their ranks swelled from 400 men at the time of september 11 attacks to tens of thousands during that war. and then luckily the tribal leaders marginalized in 2006
and seven solve that problem for us to great to degree. but then just at the time barack obama was killing obama and pakistan in 2001 he was taking his side in libya than in sierra. so the libyans and syrians had gone to iraq to fight against the united states and forces there had now come home just as bin laden them had come home from 19 '80s war in afghanistan. these guys came to start a revolution and libya. al qaeda in the islamic, these guys fought in iraq or two. obama took their side and a nine month air war in special operations war to overthrow qaddafi who was murdered on the side of the road. the country plunge into absolute turmoil, violence and
civil war that has been raging ever since that time. and then they took the jihad is, the guns, ship them off to sierra for the next regime change. as barack obama explained to jeffrey goldberg in 2012, the iraq war has empowered iran. don't you think if we got rid of the shot in sierra would help bring iran down? obama said absolutely. jeffrey goldberg said what more can be done to see this through, to make it happen sooner? obama says essentially, i tell you but i have to kill you. as i can't play jeffrey are classified clearances in high enough. what he meant by that was the united states had already launched a covid action campaign in coordination with saudi arabia, qatar, turkey, jordan, and israel to support al qaeda in iraq in sierra. they called the moderate
rebels. they were nothing about the head chopper suicide bomber enemies from iraq or two. and so that war ended up leading as john kerry explained in a secretly work corded discussion with syrian rebels, led to the al qaeda forces and isis which split off from al qaeda deciding not to march west to damascus but instead to go east and conquer all of western iraq. leading to the islamic state which in the days of george w. bush was the wildest war propaganda of liars like glenn >> who said there is a fax just out there that's coming to get us. we are nothing but nationstates in the way. this was osama bin laden's wildest dream hiding in the attic. and yet with bush was a walk war in iraq and obama's war in sierra they succeeded in the impossible creating a literal
for three years from 2014 -- 17. tens of thousands in their army leading to iraq war three and total casualties in iraq and sierra have certainly more than half a million. they had done the same things with debate and switch down any yemen or barack obama had a war beginning in 2009 of cia drone war against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. the real al qaeda terrorist that help coordinate september 11 to bomb the uss cole in 2000. who did the bombing attempting to blow up a trait over detroit on christmas day 2009. and obama was bombing them. but then, i'll skip the politics it's a complicated mess. by the end of 2148 shiite group friendly with the eye ron came out of the north sack to the capitol city.
at the time that happened you can all read this in the wall street journal and a great piece on i will monitor from january 2015, our current secretary of defense was a four star general. and he made a deal to you guys like killing al qaeda? no problem. he was funneling them intelligence to use to target that was january 2013th. just two months later barack obama stabbed them in the back and took al qaeda's side against them in the war launched by saudi arabia including the united states that help the war from the very beginning. obama gave the green light to begin it. al qaeda has been a major part of the coalition this whole time. cnn did a good story a couple years ago how the uae had given al qaeda american on
personal carriers who were taken into battle. this is really embarrassing made a deal with them. the trump governments and now into biden pretend that the war against al qaeda that is just not trooper it al qaeda and the arabian peninsula have been integrated into the uae armed militia force on the ground. and acting as part of the coalition with the bin laden. against their enemies just because they are friends with iran. >> scott horton you may see this as a false question how do we protect american
interests abroad if we end the war on terror? >> the first think we should do is stop supporting terrorist groups. going leave a safe haven behind. our government through the church still supports al qaeda in sierra this horrific war of genocidal proportions against a civilian population. we continue to target sanctions that are at the top of the list. the first thing for regime change itself is stop supporting terrorism. and then as far as the threat of further anti- american terrorism we have to call off the entire policy of american dominance of the middle east. that is the cause against the united states in the first place.
so ending the war on terrorism won't do. we will still be at risk. the middle part of north america has to renounce their pretended mandate to rule the rest of the world and particularly their middle east now. >> scott is the author of this book enough already time to end the war on terrorism. he's also the director of the libertarian institute editorial director of antiwar.com which is what mr. horton? >> antiwar.com is the most important project on the internet. been around for 25 years, right about everything the whole time. libertarian noninterventionist. we are very catholic in our organization we feature all of the best writers from the left, right, around the world
the most important project just to extrapolate a little bit will talk about the war on terror. you think american forces should be brought back from korea since they would have international basis? >> no. in fact our constitution describes a limited republic rather than a world empire. there is no threat and korea, japan, or europe for that matter. they want to be able to hold the north korean threat split us keep our troops there. if we just let the south koreans drive they would reunify. they would make a deal in reunify with the north look
what's going on with the controversy were biden is in trouble now for ccing, obstructing russia for obstructing the pipeline your audience is familiar lesser times germany and russia fought was the worst thing that has ever happened. now we have the germans donald trump complained refused to spend gdp on their military. to expand trade in her government do not believe the russians are coming. the reason why the russians aren't coming. america's expanded nato all the way up to their borders threaten perennially to the