Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

Read this well written article if you feel you need to brush up on how Al-Qaeda was created as a drug running covert army to be a thorn in the side of the Soviets by our own CIA, Carter and Reagan Administrations. It also covers some of the history of drug running as a routine operation for empires to gain funds for covert military actions they can't always get through democratic channels.

Seen in this context it is then not unusual at all that the airport where Mr. Atta, the supposed ring leader of the 9/11 Hijackers, was practicing his flying skills, happened to be a long time hub for drug running.

Also in the article below we are forced to acknowledge the wicked game played with the people of Central Asia by the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, George H.W. Bush, Robert Gates and others. If one government doesn't suit our desires, we start funding a guerilla war against them. Today the wars of the War on Terror have been fought completely against groups which at one time or another we supported, and perhaps in some covert way still do. This will continue to be the case as long as sustained conflict and instability in the region is seen by some as a benefit in the context of perverse geopolitical goals.

We have destroyed countries like Afghanistan in actuality many times over. This is why the idea of spreading democracy and the troops doing good work for the Afghan people can only seem like a sick joke. Imagine someone had a house which they were making improvements on. We come along and burn it to the ground and build a new house and say live in this one. Then we burn that house to the ground and say, ok now live in this one. In the end wouldn't anyone get sick of us destroying their home and telling them how to live?

And as one must realize how again and again that it is the CIA, ISI and other western backed forces involved in arming the Islamic extremists of Central and South Asia, creating the desired instability, how then are we suddenly to believe that Al-Qaeda has now transformed into an evil army which acts independently of all these ties that built it and that its cutthroat western makers and handlers now truly wish to destroy it?

Go to either of the links below to read the article in full.

From Global Research and Prison Planet.

...Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, “the center of the Arc of Crisis,” and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.

This was the emergence of the “strategy of tension” in the “Arc of Crisis,” in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of ‘divide and conquer’: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests...

...In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to “its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies.”[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as “Communist” and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.

In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter’s Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 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.[42]

Brzezinski elaborated, saying he “Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade,” and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, “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.” When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, “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?”[43]

...The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would “consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program,” and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]

In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI “offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,” who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA’s aid went to Hekmatyar’s guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan’s leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a “complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan).”[59]

The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin “protected by ISI papers from police search.”[61]

...In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in “non-lethal” aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: “The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program,” and “The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks.”[64]

The textbooks were “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings,” and “were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks “have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.” The books were developed through a USAID grant to the “University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies,” and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines.” USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]

The Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.

In the early 1990s, an obscure group of “Pashtun country folk” had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban “surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords.” As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]

The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and “became more and more of a direct military alliance.” The Taliban ultimately became “an asset of the ISI” and “a client of the Pakistan army.”[68] Further, “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.”[69]

...Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, “literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”[80] Thus, “Al-Qaeda” was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database,” and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property,” and further:

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]

The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this “database” of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the ‘new world order’...


  1. There is nothing really secret about this. This is all known to anyone who paid attention to the last part of the Cold War (late 70's and beyond). The CIA created and financed Pakistan's ISI and helped support Zia ul Haq's regime in the 1980's because he was "anti-communist". The creation of Al Quaida came later. Also, the CIA, with the ISI, help to create the Taliban regime during the early 90's because they wanted a "stable" government in Afghanistan so that they could route the pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Caspian Sea oil.

    Since the end of the Cold War, it was all about the pipeline and Caspian Sea oil.

    As Nicky Santoro once said "It's always the f**king dollars, its always about the dollars".

  2. Neither article talks about the pipeline that was to transport Caspian Sea oil to the Indian Ocean to be loaded into tankers for Western markets. See, they wanted the pipeline to go west through the Caucasus, where the oil would be loaded into tankers at a port on the east coast of the Black Sea. These tankers would then pass through the Straights of Bosporus on their way to Europe. The Turk were adamantly opposed to this. The problem is that it would have been mostly Russian owned or crewed tankers that would be carrying that oil. The Russian crews had a well-known reputation for schlock and the Turks were afraid that they would crack a few tankers up in the Straights, spilling oil all over the place. The Turks would not budge on their opposition to this. The northern route was out because it would have gone through Russia and the whole idea of this was not to have to deal with the Russians to sell Caspian Sea oil to western markets.

    The obvious southern route was through Iran. But this was out because we were still not willing to make nice with the Iranians. Hence, the need to route the pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to a port on the Indian Ocean. This is the reason we (CIA) financed and supported the takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban. They thought they could get a "stable" government that would be semi-pro western or at least "hands-off" with regards to the pipeline.

    Of course, we all know where that Caspian Sea oil is going today. Its not going west, or south, or even north. Its going east and east only, because that's there China is and China is now the largest consumer of oil and natural gas.

    Much of these articles is correct. However, their omission of the pipeline politics (which completely dominated our relations with the region through-out the 1990's) makes clear the authors are still befuddled on all of this.