Grayson: “If Iraq Won’t Defend its Own Territory, Why Should We?

Recently, before the U.S. announced and launched
air attacks in Syria to destroy oil refineries in ISIS-controlled territory,
Rep. Alan Grayson was invited onto Thom Hartmann's national TV show, to discuss
alternatives. Thom Hartmann's view is that the United States is being baited
into war. To support that view, Thom began the segment with testimony from an
unusual witness: Osama Bin Laden, in a recording from ten years ago.



Osama Bin Laden : "[It's] easy to bait this
administration.... All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the
furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written "Al
Qaeda," in order to make generals race there, [and] to cause America to
suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of
note other than some benefits for their private corporations.... We are
continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah
willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.... Every dollar of Al Qaeda
defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a
huge number of jobs.... It is true that this shows that Al Qaeda has gained,
but on the other hand it shows that the Bush Administration has also gained,
something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the
shady Bush Administration-linked mega-corporations like Halliburton and its
kind, will be convinced [of]. And it all shows that the real loser is you, it
is the American economy."



Thom Hartmann: Flash forward ten years, and it looks like ISIS
is following the exact same script as Bin Laden did a decade ago. With the
video beheading of another American journalist, the group is practically begging the Obama Administration to
get involved in a two-front war in Iraq and Syria.After all, there is nothing better for a terrorist
group to cut its chops in global jihad than duking it out with America, in the
heart of the Middle East. So does this mean it is time to rethink America's
role in fighting ISIS? And why aren't other Arab countries in the region taking
on a bigger role, in the fight against a group that is more extreme even for Al
Qaeda? Joining now for more on this is Congressman Alan Grayson, Representative
of Florida's 9th District, a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
Congressman Grayson. Welcome back, it's always great to see you. You've sent letters to the U.S. Ambassadors of a number of Arab
nations asking them to commit 5,000 troops as part of a multilateral force to
fight ISIS. Do you want to walk us through this plan?



CongressmanAlan Grayson: Sure, I think that this is a regional problem that needs a regional solution.
I don't [agree with those who] think that every time we see something bad in
the world, we should bomb it. This is a problem that is rooted in the
Sunni/Shiite warfare in the Middle East. I've called upon the Sunni leaders in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
UAE, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco, all of them that
have forces at their command, to attack ISIS and end the threat of Sunni
fundamentalism, with their own forces.



Thom: Have you received any responses from governments to say
yes or no?



Alan: Actually I haven't yet. . . . [Since this interview,
three Arab countries have said yes - Ed.] I think that these countries need to be prodded into defending themselves.
I think Iraq had done an appallingly poor job of it. Their forces outnumber ISIS forces [by] 100 to 1, and [yet]
they constantly abandon the battlefield. We'll see if the same thing is
true [of Arab soldiers from] elsewhere. I'm hoping that these countries will go
ahead, band together, and eliminate these Sunni fundamentalist threats, but if Iraq won't defend its own territory, if these countries
won't eliminate these radicals in their midst, then you have to wonder, Tom,
why should we?



Thom: One of the countries, in fact, that you have asked to be
a part of that multilateral coalition is Saudi Arabia, which according to many
sources has been a major source of funding for ISIS. How can it be a reliable
partner in a coalition?



Alan: Well, it's time [for them] to put up or shut up. We need
to determine if these countries have any fight in them, and that still remains
to be seen. We're giving them an opportunity to step up, and do the job that
they're supposed to do. I'm concerned that what we're seeing in the Middle East
is what the Right Wing here in America calls a "culture of
dependence." They've developed a dependence upon the [American]
military-industrial complex to defend them,
when in fact they should be defending themselves. Iraq alone has $100 billion
in oil money at its disposal every year. They have some of the best-equipped
troops in the entire world. They should be defending themselves, and not relying on our
money and our blood to defend them.



Thom: Last year, all the hawks were calling for us to bomb
President Assad in Syria; now they're calling us to bomb ISIS in Syria, which
is fighting Assad in Syria. How does that make any sense?



Alan: It just doesn't. This is a situation where we have few
friends (if any) in the region. [We can't just] jump ahead to go to war, and
essentially become the Shiite Air Force -- which would be what we would be
doing if we attacked ISIS on a consistent basis. This makes no sense. When I
was on national TV last year arguing that we should not militarily intervene in
Syria, one of the announcers asked me, "Shouldn't we be helping
the opposition in Syria?" I said: "Which ones? The anti-Semites or
the Al Qaeda graduates?"Well
now we see, a year later, that we have the Al Qaeda graduates taking the lead.
That was ISIS.



Thom: I mentioned in my intro that ISIS is following the Bin
Laden playbook with beheadings, and trying to drag America -- or draw us --
into a war. Do you think it is a fair analysis?



Alan: Yes, and a simple question is, what is best for America?
It doesn't make sense for us at all to be involved in another land war in the
Middle East -- our third one in a short period of time -- when we haven't even
disengaged ourselves from the remaining two. Does that make any sense? Do we spend another $4 trillion? Do we have another quarter of
a million US troops return [from the Middle East] with permanent brain
abnormalities? Should we spill the blood, and kill, another 4,000 of our troops
-- again? Does that make any sense?



Thom: Not to me. The U.S. has a longstanding policy of not
negotiating with terrorists (even though we did negotiate with terrorists to
free Bowe Bergdahl). Do you think given these killings with Sotloff and Foley,
and the other countries getting their hostages out by actually negotiating and
paying ransoms, that we should rethink that negotiating policy?



Alan: No, I don't think we need to rethink it. I understand the urge that people have right now, including the
President and including most Americans, for revenge against ISIS. But revenge
is one thing, and war is quite another.I
don't think we should be putting our money and our blood on the line in a
situation where we have no friends and no strategic advantage. The fact is that
this intervention, if it does take place, would violate every single rule in
the rulebook of warfare (or at least [how] Colin Powell has expressed it). We
have no strategic interest, we have no strategic advantage, we would not be
using a force that would essentially obliterate the enemy, [because such
obliteration would require] everything short of nuclear weapons, I imagine. And
additionally, we have no exit strategy.My
goodness, we're in our thirteen year of war in Afghanistan. Don't we know the
simple rule [by now] that if we're going to go in, we should know how we're going to get
out?



Thom: What should that tell us about America's ability to
nation-build, in that the countries that we have intervened in [during] the
last 13 years -- Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan -- they're all spiraling into chaos?



Alan: Well, what it should tell us is that these countries
would be better off if they turned to their neighbors [for help], and that is
exactly what I'm suggesting. If you have an American soldier that goes to fight
ISIS in the Middle East, what he's doing is becoming a target for an IED, a
target for a sniper, whatever. If you have a Saudi soldier doing that, a Saudi soldier understands the
local terrain, understands the local culture, understands the language and the
religious practices, and he looks like the people he is trying to protect.
That's the obvious solution to the problem,
and we have to pull together and make it happen. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the UAE, and even the Iraqis don't
want to shed their own blood, as long as they're confident that we will shed
ours. That has to change.



Thom: I'm wondering if you've talked to anyone in the
Administration, State, Defense? Any feedback on this?



Alan: No, they concede that they have no strategy [that would
defeat ISIS]. What I am trying to do is create one.



Thom: That's brilliant. Congressman Grayson, it's great to
have you in Congress. Thanks for joining us tonight.