Al Qaeda and the ”War on Terrorism”
by Michel Chossudovsky
(Global Research)The following text was first published in Italian in: Giuletto Chiesa (Editor), Zero,
Perch?la versione ufficiale sull’ 11/9 ?un Falso [Zero: Why the
Official Version on 9/11 is a Falsehood], Piemme, Casale Monferrato,
2007. A detailed analysis of the relevant issues covered in this article is also contained in the author’s book America War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005IntroductionOne
of the main objectives of war propaganda is to fabricate an enemy.
The outside enemy personified by Osama bin Laden is threatening
America.
Pre-emptive war directed
against Islamic terrorists is required to defend the Homeland.
Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.
In the wake of 9/11, the
creation of this outside enemy has served to obfuscate the real
economic and strategic objectives behind the war in the Middle East and
Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war
is upheld as a just war with a humanitarian mandate.
As anti-war sentiment grows and
the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts
regarding the existence of this illusive outside enemy must be
dispelled.
Counter-terrorism and war
propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds
disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to
be genuine. The objective is to present the terror groups as enemies
of America.
Ironically, Al Qaeda–the
outside enemy of Americaas well asthe alleged architect of the 9/11
attacks– is a creation of the CIA.
From the outset of the
Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has
supported the formation of the Islamic brigades. Propaganda purports
to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and kill the
evidence on how this outside enemy was fabricated and transformed
into Enemy Number One.
The US intelligence apparatus
has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it
creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist
organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive
multibillion dollar counterterrorism program to go after these
terrorist organizations has been put in place.
Portrayed in stylized fashion
by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various
henchmen, constitutes America post-Cold war bogeyman, who threatens
Western democracy. The alleged threat of Islamic
terrorists,permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its
purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while
establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security
State.
Historical Background
What are the historical origins of Al Qaeda? Who is Osama bin Laden?
The alleged mastermind behind
the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited
during the Soviet-Afghan war, ironically under the auspices of the
CIA, to fight Soviet invaders.(Hugh Davies, `Informers?point the
finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers. The
Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998). In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:
With the active encouragement
of the CIA and Pakistan ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into
a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some
35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan
fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in
Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim
radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad. (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).
This project of the US
intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of
Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in
channelling covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing,
in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahideen training camps.
U.S. government support to the
Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a necessary
response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the
pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.
The CIA military-intelligence
operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the Islamic
brigades, was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of
Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington intent was to
deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25
years.
The CIA role in laying the
foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President
Jimmy Carter:
Brzezinski: According
to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began
during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan,
[on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is
completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of
the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note
to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this
aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question:
Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn quite that. We didn push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question: When
the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret
what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?
The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR
its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a
war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What
is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the
liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ( The
CIA Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter National Security Adviser, Le Nouvel
Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre
for Research on Globalisation, 5 October 2001, italics added.)
Consistent with Brzezinski account, a Militant Islamic Network was created by the CIA.
The Islamic Jihad (or holy
war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA
intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi
Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the
Golden Crescent drug trade:
In March 1985, President
Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 ?[which]
authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it
made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet
troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet
withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic
increase in arms supplies ?a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by
1987 ?as well as a ceaseless stream of CIA and Pentagon specialists
who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan ISI on the main
road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with
Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan
rebels.(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)
The Central
Intelligence Agency using Pakistan ISI as a go-between played a key
role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla
training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were
set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: [I]t
was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani
dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools,
from which the germs of the Taliban emerged.(Revolutionary Association
of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), RAWA Statement on the Terrorist
Attacks in the U.S., Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 16 September 2001)
Predominant themes were that
Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was
being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic
people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by
overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow. (Dilip
Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November
1995.)
Pakistan ISI Used as a Go-Between
CIA covert support to the
Islamic Jihad operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI ?i.e.
the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For
these covert operations to be successful, Washington was careful not
to reveal the ultimate objective of the Jihad, which consisted not
only in destabilising the secular (pro-Soviet) government in
Afghanistan, but also destroying the Soviet Union.
In the words of the CIA
Milton Beardman, We didn train Arabs. Yet, according to Abdel Monam
Saidali, of the Al-aram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin
Laden and the Afghan Arabs had been imparted with very sophisticated
types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA. (National
Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, 16
August 1998).
The CIA Beardman confirmed,
in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was
playing on behalf of Washington. According to bin Laden (as quoted by
Beardman): Neither I, nor my brothers, saw evidence of American help.
(National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted
Clark, transcript, 16 August 1998).
Motivated by nationalism and
religious fervour, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were
fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were
contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic
rebel leaders in the war theatre had no contacts with Washington or the
CIA.
With CIA backing and the
funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI
had developed into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over
all aspects of government. (Dipankar Banerjee, Possible Connection of
ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a
staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats,
undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid).
Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:
Relations between the CIA and
the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia ouster of
Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. ?During most of the
Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the
United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in
1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central
Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.
The CIA was more cautious than
the Pakistanis. Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of
deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a
settlement, while privately agreeing that military escalation was the
best course. (Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan:
The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in
International Press Services, 22 August 1995).
The CIA sponsored Narcotics Trade
The history of the drug trade
in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA covert operations.
Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and
Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local
production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA Forty Year
Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997). Researcher
Alfred McCoy study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of
the CIA operation in Afghanistan, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands
became the world top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S.
demand. (Ibid)
CIA assets again controlled
this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside
Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary
tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates
under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of
heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major
seizures or arrests. ?(Ibid)
Afghanistan is a strategic hub
in Central Asia, bordering on China Western frontier and on the
former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and
gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian
sea, it is also strategic for its opium production, which today,
according to UN sources, supplies more than 90 % of the World heroin
market, representing multi-billion dollar revenues for business
syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized
crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America War on Terrorism, Global
Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)
Protected by the CIA, a new
surge in opium production unfolded in the post cold War era. Since the
October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased
33 fold since the US led invasion. The annual proceeds of the Golden
Crescent drug trade are estimated between 120 and 194 billion dollars
(2006), representing more than one third of the worldwide annual
turnover of the narcotics trade. (Michel Chossudovsky, Heroin is good
for Your Health, Occupation Forces Support Afghan Drug Trade, Global
Research, April 2007. see also Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing
World, Technical document No. 4, 1998),
From the Soviet-Afghan War to the War on Terrorism
Despite the demise of the
Soviet Union, Pakistan extensive military-intelligence apparatus (the
ISI) was not dismantled. In the wake of the Cold War, the CIA continued
to support the Islamic brigades out of Pakistan. New undercover
initiatives were set in motion in the Middle East, Central Asia, the
Balkans and south East Asia. In the immediate wke of the Cold War,
Pakistan ISI served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the
Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central
Asia. (International Press Services, 22 August 1995).
Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries
of the Wahabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the
Muslim republics, as well as within the Russian federation, encroaching
upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American
ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington
strategic interests in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and the
Middle East.
Following the withdrawal of
Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated.
The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their
political party, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, the JUI
entered Pakistan government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir
Bhutto. Ties between the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established. In
1996, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in
Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government,
they also handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI
factions ?quot;. (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign
Affairs, November - December, 1999, p. 22.)
The JUI, with the support of
the Saudi Wahabi movement, played a key role in recruiting volunteers
to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. (Ibid)
Jane Defence Weekly confirms,
that half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan
under the ISI. In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet
withdrawal, both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive US
covert support through Pakistan ISI. (Tim McGirk, Kabul Learns to
Live with its Bearded Conquerors, The Independent, London, 6 November 1996.)
Backed by Pakistan military
intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban
Islamic State largely served US geopolitical interests. No doubt this
explains why Washington had closed its eyes on the reign of terror
imposed by the Taliban in 1996, including the blatant derogation of
women rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of
women employees from government offices and the enforcement of the
Sharia laws of punishment. (K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing
Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995.)
The Golden Crescent drug trade
was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army
(starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In
fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen
mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in
their assaults into Macedonia.
The War in Chechnya
In Chechnya, the renegade
autonomous region of the Russian Federation, the main rebel leaders,
Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in
CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef
Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress?Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a
secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu,
Somalia. (Levon Sevunts, Who Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict
finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, The Gazette,
Montreal, 26 October 1999.) The summit was attended by none
other than Osama bin Laden, as well as high-ranking Iranian and
Pakistani intelligence officers. It obvious that the involvement of
Pakistan ISI in Chechnya goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with
weapons and expertise: The ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are
actually calling the shots in this war.(Ibid)
Russia main pipeline route
transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington
condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the
wars in Chechnya are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are
vying for complete control over oil resources and pipeline corridors
out of the Caspian Sea basin.
The two main Chechen rebel
armies (which at the time were led by the (late) Commander Shamil
Basayevand Emir Khattab), estimated at 35,000 strong, were supported
by Pakistan ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and
training the rebel army:
[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter
Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants
to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla
warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set
up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani
warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir
Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to
undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev
met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers:
Minister of Defence General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior
General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of
supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf (all now retired).
High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev. (Ibid)
Following his training and
indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against
Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His
organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates
in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the KLA. In
1997-1998, according to Russia Federal Security Service (FSB)
Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo ?through
several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia. (Vitaly
Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo, Segodnia,
Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)
Dismantling Secular Institutions in the former Soviet Union
The enforcement of Islamic law
in the largely secular Muslim societies of the former Soviet Union has
served America strategic interests in the region. Previously, a
strong secular tradition based on a rejection of Islamic law prevailed
throughout the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus, including
Chechnya and Dagestan (which are part of the Russian Federation).
The 1994-1996 Chechen war,
instigated by the main rebel movements against Moscow, has served to
undermine secular state institutions. A parallel system of local
government, controlled by the Islamic militia, was implanted in many
localities in Chechnya. In some of the small towns and villages,
Islamic Sharia courts were established under a reign of political
terror.
Financial aid from Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf States to the rebel armies was conditional upon the
installation of the Sharia courts, despite strong opposition of the
civilian population. The Principal Judge and Ameer of the Sharia courts
in Chechnya wasSheikh Abu Umar, who came to Chechnya in 1995 and
joined the ranks of the Mujahideen there under the leadership of
Ibn-ul-Khattab. ?He set about teaching Islam with the correct Aqeedah
to the Chechen Mujahideen, many of whom held incorrect and distorted
beliefs about Islam. (Global Muslim News, http://www.islam.org.au/articles/21/news.htm, December 1997).
Meanwhile, state institutions
of the Russian Federation in Chechnya were crumbling under the brunt of
the IMF-sponsored austerity measures imposed under the Presidency of
Boris Yeltsin. In contrast, the Sharia courts, financed and equipped
out of Saudi Arabia, were gradually displacing existing State
institutions of the Russian Federation and the Chechnya autonomous
region.
The Wahabi movement from Saudi
Arabia was not only attempting to overrun civilian State institutions
in Dagestan and Chechnya, it was also seeking to displace the
traditional Sufi Muslim leaders. In fact, the resistance to the Islamic
rebels in Dagestan was based on the alliance of the (secular) local
governments with the Sufi sheiks:
These [Wahabi] groups consist
of a very tiny but well-financed and well-armed minority. They propose
with these attacks the creation of terror in the hearts of the masses.
?By creating anarchy and lawlessness, these groups can enforce their
own harsh, intolerant brand of Islam. ?Such groups do not represent
the common view of Islam, held by the vast majority of Muslims and
Islamic scholars, for whom Islam exemplifies the paragon of
civilization and perfected morality. They represent what is nothing
less than a movement to anarchy under an Islamic label. ?Their
intention is not so much to create an Islamic state, but to create a
state of confusion in which they are able to thrive.34 Mateen Siddiqui,
Differentiating Islam from Militant æ…–slamists?quot; San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1999
Promoting Secessionist Movements in India
In parallel with its covert
operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, Pakistan ISI
has provided, since the 1980s, support to several secessionist Islamic
insurgencies in India Kashmir.
Although officially condemned
by Washington, these covert ISI operations were undertaken with the
tacit approval of the U.S. government. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva
Peace Agreement and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was
instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM). (See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian
Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 19950.
Im the immediate wake of 9/11,
the December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament ?which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war ?were
conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Army of
the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), both of which are
covertly supported by Pakistan ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations,
Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen,
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Washington 2002. Note: This report is no longer available on the CFR website.)
The timely attack on the Indian
Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots in Gujarat in early 2002, were
the culmination of a process initiated in the 1980s, financed by drug
money and abetted by Pakistan military intelligence.
Needless to say, these
ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests of the
U.S. The powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which plays a
behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy,
confirms that the Lashkar and Jaish rebel groups are supported by the
ISI:
Through its Inter-Service
Intelligence Agency (ISI), Pakistan has provided funding, arms,
training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to Lashkar and Jaish.
This assistance ?an attempt to replicate in Kashmir the international
Islamist brigade holy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan ?
helped introduce radical Islam into the long-standing conflict over the
fate of Kashmir. ?/p>
Have these groups received funding from sources other than the Pakistani government?
Yes.
Members of the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities in England send
millions of dollars a year, and Wahabi sympathizers in the Persian Gulf
also provide support.
Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to Al-Qaeda?
Yes. In 1998, the leader of
Harakat, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil, signed Osama bin Laden declaration
calling for attacks on Americans, including civilians, and their
allies. Bin Laden is also suspected of funding Jaish, according to U.S.
and Indian officials. And Maulana Massoud Azhar, who founded Jaish,
travelled to Afghanistan several times to meet bin Laden.
Where were these Islamist militants trained?Many
were given ideological training in the same madrasahs, or Muslim
seminaries, that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in
Afghanistan. They received military training at camps in Afghanistan or
in villages in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Extremist groups have
recently opened several new madrasas in Azad Kashmir. (Council on Foreign Relations, Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Washington 2002. This text was removed from the CFR website in 2006)
What the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) fails to acknowledge are the links between the ISI and
the CIA and the fact that the international Islamic brigades were a
creation of the CIA.
U.S.-Sponsored Insurgencies in China
Also of significance in
understanding America War on Terrorism is the existence of
ISI-supported Islamic insurgencies on China Western border with
Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, several of the Islamic movements in
the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union are integrated with the
Turkestan and Uigur movements in China Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous
region.
These separatist groups ?which
include the East Turkestan Terrorist Force, the Islamic Reformist
Party, the East Turkestan National Unity Alliance, the Uigur Liberation
Organization and the Central Asian Uigur Jihad Party ?have all
received support and training from Osama bin Laden Al Qaeda.
(According to official Chinese sources quoted in UPI, 20 November
2001.). The declared objective of these Chinese-based Islamic
insurgencies is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the
region. (Defence and Security, May 30, 2001).
The caliphate would integrate
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan (West Turkestan) and the Uigur
autonomous region of China (East Turkestan) into a single political
entity.
The caliphate project
encroaches upon Chinese territorial sovereignty. Supported by various
Wahabi foundations from the Gulf States, secessionism on China
Western frontier is, once again, consistent with U.S. strategic
interests in Central Asia. Meanwhile, a powerful U.S.-based lobby is
channelling support to separatist forces in Tibet.
By tacitly promoting the
secession of the Xinjiang-Uigur region (using Pakistan ISI as a
go-between), Washington is attempting to trigger a broader process of
political destabilization and fracturing of the People Republic of
China. In addition to these various covert operations, the U.S. has
established military bases in Afghanistan and in several of the former
Soviet republics, directly on China Western border.
The militarization of the South China Sea and of the Taiwan Straits is also an integral part of this strategy.
Yugoslavia
Throughout the 1990s, the
Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a
go-between — to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the
Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a
report of the London based International Media Corporation:
Reliable sources report that
the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming
and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct
contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been
providing weapons made in … China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran.
The sources indicated that … Iran, with the knowledge and agreement
of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number
of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These
included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple
rocket launchers … made in Iran. … It was [also] reported that 400
members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia
with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation
and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for
future terrorist operations in Western Europe.
The US Administration has not
restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN
arms embargo on the region … It [also] committed three high-ranking
delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts
to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia
is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US
pressure. (International Media Corporation, Defence and Strategy
Policy, U.S. Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994)
From the Horse’s Mouth
Ironically, the US
Administration’s undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia,
which consisted in promoting the formation of Islamic brigades, have
been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional
report by the Senate Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in
1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report
quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton
administration of having helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic
base leading to the recruitment through the so-called Militant
Islamic Network, of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:
Perhaps most threatening to
the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American
personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton
Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American
people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the
Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by
Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and
then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter
Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified
intelligence community sources), played a central role in the dramatic
increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.
(…)
Along with the weapons,
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered
Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin (holy
warriors) from across the Muslim world.
Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries
(including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey)
and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role
of one Sudan-based humanitarian organization, called the Third World
Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration’s
hands-on involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline
included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government
officials… the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based,
phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms
pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such
fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the
convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and
Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi é–™igr?believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96]
(Congressional Press Release,
Republican Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved
Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,
Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre
of Research on Globalisation (CRG). The original document
is on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee
(Senator Larry Craig), atsee also Washington Post, 22 September 1999, Emphasis added)
Complicity of the Clinton Administration
In other words, the Republican
Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the
Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist
organisations including Al Qaeda.
The Republicans wanted at the
time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when
the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal,
the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely
Iran-Bosniagate affair, which might have unduly diverted public
attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to
impeach Bill Clinton for having lied to the American People regarding
his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more
substantive foreign policy lies regarding drug running and covert
operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison,
no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to spill the
beans.
From Bosnia to Kosovo
The Bosnian pattern described
in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the
complicity of NATO and the US State Department,Mujahideen mercenaries
from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the
ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely
supporting NATO’s war effort.
Confirmed by British military
sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted
in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s
Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with former and serving
members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as
well as three British and American private security companies. (The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 29 August 1999).
The US DIA approached MI6 to
arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British
military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British
security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members
of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and
equipment needed by the KLA.’ While these covert operations were
continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit’s
D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the
bombing campaign in March. (Truth in Media, Kosovo in Crisis,
Phoenix, Arizona, http://www.truthinmedia.org/, 2 April 1999).
While British SAS Special
Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military
instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the Islamic jihad
were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion
tactics.:(The Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998).
Bin Laden had visited Albania
himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent
units to fight in Kosovo, … Bin Laden is believed to have established
an operation in Albania in 1994 … Albanian sources say Sali Berisha,
who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to
be extreme fundamentalists. (Ibid)
Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Al Qaeda links
In the mid-1990s, the CIA and
Germany’s Secret Service, the BND, joined hands in providing covert
support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the latter was
receiving support from Al Qaeda.
According to Frank Ciluffo of
the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a December 2000 testimony to
the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:
What was largely hidden from
public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from
the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the
Balkan Route that links the Golden Crescent of Afghanistan and
Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an
estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined
for Europe. (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy
Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary
Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000).
According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:
nThe U.S. State Department
listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was
financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade
and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly
Usama bin Laden . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the
brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a
military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit
during the Kosovo conflict.(U.S. Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke
of Interpol Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial
Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000.)
Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA
These KLA links to
international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US
Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact,
in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright was busy building a political legitimacy for the
KLA. The paramilitary army had –from one day to the next– been
elevated to the status of a bona fide democratic force in Kosovo. In
turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international
diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in
the failed peace negotiations at Rambouiillet in early 1999.
The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism
While the various Congressional
reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove
with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and
later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The
Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the
House knew the relationship of the Administration to international
terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House
Armed Services Committee: We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the
KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden… (U.S. Congress,
Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5
October 1999,)
In the wake of the tragic
events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given
their full support to the President to wage war on Osama.
In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman
had stated authoritatively that Fighting for the KLA is fighting for
human rights and American values. In the hours following the October 7
missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for
punitive air strikes against Iraq: We’re in a war against terrorism…
We can’t stop with bin Laden and the Taliban. Yet Senator Jo
Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had
access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to KLA-Osama
links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies
of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international
terrorism.
The Islamic Militant Network and NATO join hands in Macedonia
In the wake of the 1999 war in
Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into
Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA –renamed the Kosovo
Protection Corps (KPC)– was elevated to United Nations status,
implying the granting of legitimate sources of funding through United
Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US
military aid.
And barely two months after the
official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999),
KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources and equipment - were already
preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their
terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik,
the KPC had established a sixth operation zone in Southern Serbia and
Macedonia:
Sources, who insist on
anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection
brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 2000]
already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being
prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and
their members have defined codes. (Macedonian Information Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World Broadcast, 24 March 2000.)
According to the BBC, Western
special forces were still training the guerrillas meaning that they
were assisting the KLA in opening up a sixth operation zone in
Southern Serbia and Macedonia. (BBC, 29 January 2001.)
Among the foreign mercenaries
fighting in Macedonia in 2001 in the ranks of self-proclaimed National
Liberation Army (NLA) were Mujahideen from the Middle East and the
Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the
KLA’s proxy force in Macedonia were senior US military advisers from a
private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as
soldiers of fortune from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these
Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian
Muslim Army. (Scotland on Sunday, 15 June 2001. See also UPI, 9 July
2001. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America War on
Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter III ).
Extensively documented by the
Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US
government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in
glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National
Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA
and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical
institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC
Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the
Mujahideen.
In a bitter twist, while
supported and financed by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA was
also being supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo
(UNMIK). In fact, the Islamic Militant Network still constitutes an
integral part of Washington’s covert military-intelligence operations
in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.
The KLA-NLA terrorists were
funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as
well as by several Islamic organisations including Al Qaeda. Drug money
was also used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US
government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the
NLA in Macedonia was implemented through various Islamic groups.
US military advisers mingle
with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries
from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle
East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a blowback where
so-called intelligence assets have gone against their sponsors!
But this did not happen during
the Cold war! It happened in Macedonia in 2000-2001. Confirmed by
numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as
well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who
accused the Western military alliance of abetting the terrorists, the
US had been supporting the Islamic brigades barely a few months prior
to the 9/11 attacks.
Washington Hidden Agenda
U.S. foreign policy is not
geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, it
is quite the opposite. The significant development of radical Islam,
in the wake of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union and the Middle
East is consistent with Washington hidden agenda. The latter consists
in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a
view to destabilizing national societies and preventing the
articulation of genuine secular social movements directed against the
American Empire. Washington continues to support ?through CIA
covert operations ?the development of Islamic fundamentalism,
throughout the Middle East, in the former Soviet Union as well in China
and India.
Throughout the developing
world, the growth of sectarian, fundamentalist and other such
organizations tends to serve U.S. interests. These various
organizations and armed insurgents have been developed, particularly in
countries where state institutions have collapsed under the brunt of
the IMF-sponsored economic reforms.
These fundamentalist organizations contribute by destroying and displacing secular institutions.
Islamic fundamentalism creates
social and ethnic divisions. It undermines the capacity of people to
organize against the American Empire. These organizations or movements,
such as the Taliban, often foment opposition to Uncle Sam in a way
which does not constitute any real threat to America broader
geopolitical and economic interests.
Erasing the History of Al Qaeda
Since September 2001, this
history of Al Qaeda has largely been erased. The links of successive US
administrations to the Islamic terror network is rarely mentioned.
A major war in the Middle East
and Central Asia, supposedly against international terrorism was
launched in October 2001 by a government which had been harboring
international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other
words, the main justification for waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq
has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately
and consciously misled by their government.
This decision to mislead the
American people was taken on September 11, 2001 barely a few hours
after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without
supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the prime
suspect. Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September ?while the
FBI investigation had barely commenced ?President Bush pledged to
lead the world to victory.
While the CIA tacitly
acknowledges that Al Qaeda was an intelligence asset during the Cold
War, the relationship is said to go way back to a bygone era.
Most post-September 11 news
reports tend to consider that these Al Qaeda -CIA links belong to the
bygone era of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as irrelevant
to an understanding of 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism. Yet
barely a few months before 9/11, there was evidence of active
collaboration between members of the US military and Al Qaeda
operatives in the civil war in Macedonia.
Lost in the barrage of recent
history, the role of the CIA, in supporting and developing
international terrorist organizations during the Cold War and its
aftermath, is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.
A blatant example of post-9/11
media distortion is the blowback thesis: Intelligence assets are
said to have gone against their sponsors; what we抳e created blows
back in our face.1 In a display of twisted logic, the U.S. administration and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:
The sophisticated methods
taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to
them by the U.S. ?and Britain ?are now tormenting the West in the
phenomenon known as blowback, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on
its own devisers.(The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001)
The U.S. media, nonetheless,
concedes that the Taliban coming to power [in 1996] is partly the
outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen ?the radical Islamic
group ?in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union. 3 But
it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes, in
chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It like
a son going against his father.
The Post 9/11 War on Terrorism
The blowback thesis is a fabrication.
The CIA never severed its ties
to the Islamic Militant Network. There is ample evidence that Al
Qaeda remains a US sponsored intelligence asset.
Al Qaeda is presented as the architect of 9/11 without ever mentioning its historical links to the CIA and Pakistan ISI.
While Al Qaeda remains firmly
under the control of the US intelligence apparatus, the US
administration has repeatedly intimated that this outside enemy will
strike again, that a second 9/11?will occur somewhere in America or
in the western World:
[there are] indications that [the] near-term attacks … will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks?
And it’s pretty clear that the nation’s capital and New York city would be on any list… (Tom Ridge, Christmas 2003)
You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation. (Donald Rumsfeld, Christmas 2003)
Credible reporting
indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a
large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our
democratic process… This is sobering information about those who wish
to do us harm… But every day we strengthen the security of our
nation. (George W. Bush, July 2004)
The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again (Dick Cheney, July 2006)
Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets (Pentagon official, quoted in the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
War Propaganda
A terrorist attack on American
soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead –according to
former US Central Command (USCENTCOM) Commander, General Tommy Franks,
who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — to the demise of Constitutional
government. In a December 2003 interview, which was barely mentioned in
the US media, General Franks had actually outlined a scenariowhich
would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation
of military rule in America:
[A] terrorist, massive,
casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world ?
it may be in the United States of America ?that causes our population
to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country
in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.
(Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)
Franks was alluding to a
so-called Pearl Harbor type event which would be used to galvanize US
public opinion in support of a military government and police state.
The terrorist massive
casualty-producing event was presented by General Franks as a crucial
political turning point. The resulting crisis, social turmoil and
public indignation would facilitate a major shift in US political,
social and institutional structures.
It is important to understand
that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue.
His statement is consistent with the dominant viewpoint both in the
Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might
unfold in the case of a national emergency.
Massive Casualty Producing Events
The massive casualty producing
event is a integral part of military doctrine. The destruction and
loss of life resulting from a terrorist attack serve to create a wave
of public indignation. They create conditions of collective fear and
intimidation, which facilitate the derogation of civil liberties and
the introduction of police state measures.
The September 11, 2001 attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were used to galvanize
public support for the invasion of Afghanistan, which took place barely
four weeks later. Without supporting evidence, Al Qaeda, which was
allegedly supported by the Taliban government, was held responsible for
the 911 attacks.
The planning of a major theater
war had been ongoing well before 9/11. Whereas the US military was
already in an advanced state of readiness, well at in advance of the
9/11 attacks, the decision to go to war with Afghanistan was taken on
the evening of September 11 and was formally announced the following
morning. Meanwhile, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and
declared war on Afghanistan on behalf of all signatory member states of
the Atlantic Alliance. NATO declaration of war based on the principle
of self-defense was taken within 24 hours of the September 11
attacks.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty
was first invoked on September 12, 2001. America European Allies plus
Canada offered their support in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
NATO embraced the US sponsored Global War on Terrorism. Fourteen NATO
member states sent troops to Afghanistan. (See NATO Review, Summer
2006)
Operation Northwoods
The 9/11 massive casualty
producing event played a crucial role in the process of military
planning. It provided, in the eyes of public opinion, a pretext to go
to war.
The triggering of war pretext
incidents is part of the Pentagon assumptions. In fact it is an
integral part of US military history.
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled Operation Northwoods, to
deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of
Cuba:
We could blow up a U.S. ship
in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba, We could develop a Communist Cuban
terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
Washington casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation. (See the declassified Top Secret 1962
document titled Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba,
See Operation Northwoods).
Terror Warnings and Terror Events
To be effective the fear and
disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
warnings of future attacks, it also requires real terrorist
occurrences or incidents, which provide credibility to the
Administration war plans. Propaganda endorses the need to implement
emergency measures as well as carry out retaliatory military actions.
Both the terror warnings and the terror events have served as a pretext to justify far-reaching military decisions.
Following the July 2005 London
bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney was reported to have instructed
USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan to be employed in response to
another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. Implied in
the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a
Second 9/11.
This contingency plan used
the pretext of a Second 9/11, which had not yet happened, to prepare
for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also
exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons
program.
What is diabolical in this
decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented
by Cheney to wage war on Iran rested on Iran’s alleged involvement in a
hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which had not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets,
including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.
Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not
be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in
the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually
being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United
States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are
reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doinghat
Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack梑ut no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip
Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that US,
British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second
9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?
Cheney’s proposed contingency
plan did not in the least focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The
Cheney plan was predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind
a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be
activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same
way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in
retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the
9/11 terrorists.
It is worth noting that one
does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of
Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer
points out in an incisive review article:
At a deeper level, it implies
that 9/11-type terrorist attacks are recognized in Cheney office
and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of
aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the
regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system…. (Michael
Keefer, Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding
the Planned Assault on Iran, Global Research, February 10, 2006)
Since 2001, Vice President Cheney has reiterated his warning of a second 9/11 on several occasions
The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against some known targets
In April 2006, (former) Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching military plan to
fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating in the
case of a second major terrorist attack on America.
Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld has approved the military’s most ambitious plan yet to fight
terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.
The long-awaited campaign plan
for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also
approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the
Pentagon’s highest priority, according to officials familiar with the
three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they
were not authorized to speak about them publicly.
Details of the plans are
secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for
the military — and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special
Operations troops — in continuous operations to combat terrorism
outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about
three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the
plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon’s involvement in domains
traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State
Department. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:
A third plan sets out how the
military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike
on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of
options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific
terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is
believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a
justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate
against some known targets, according to current and former defense
officials familiar with the plan.
This plan details what
terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves
are not off, said one official, who asked not to be identified because
of the sensitivity of the subject. (italics added, Washington Post, 23
April 2006)
The presumption of this
military document, is that a Second 911 attack which is lacking today
would usefully create both a justification and an opportunity to wage
war on some known targets [Iran and Syria].
Realities are twisted upside
down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British
and US media are increasingly pointing towards preemptive war as an
act of self defense against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of
terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying
objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public
acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East war on terrorism
which is directed against Syria and Iran.
Concluding Remarks
The threat of an Al Qaeda
Attack on America is being used profusely by the Bush administration
and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in
support of a global military agenda.
Known and documented, the
Islamic terror network is a creation of the US intelligence
apparatus. There is firm evidence that several of the terrorist mass
casualty events which have resulted in civilian casualties were
triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. Similarly,
corroborated by evidence, several of the terror alerts were based on
fake intelligence as revealed in the London 2006 foiled liquid bomb
attack, where the alleged hijackers had not purchased airline tickets
and several did not have passports to board the aircraft.
The war on terrorism is
bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is
fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and
complicity at the highest levels of government.
Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the war on terrorism.
Revealing the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement.
Without 911, the war criminals
in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national
security construct collapses like a deck of cards. –Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America War on Terrorism
Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University
of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.
Tags: beneficiaries, brother, bush administration, cate, daily telegraph, endor, europe, ford, hero, invasion of iraq, issa, liar, los angeles times, nationalism, objective, outset, oxford university, pace, rbi, soviets, stint, target, ups, us congress