Othlo / Política / Documentación


Opina en el foro.

Contacta y opina con otros colaboradores de Othlo en la lista de correo.
Suscríbete al boletín de novedades de Othlo.
Colabora en Othlo.



The CIA, Osama Bin Laden and His American Business Partners
BIN LADEN COMES HOME TO ROOST His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran


NEW YORK, Aug. 24 At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the
term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you


BEFORE YOU CLICK on my face and call me naive, let me concede some points. Yes,
the West needed Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, there were times during the Cold
War when supporting one villain (Cambodia's Lon Nol, for instance) would have been better
than the alternative (Pol Pot). So yes, there are times when any nation must hold its nose
and shake hands with the devil for the long-term good of the planet.
But just as surely, there are times when the United States, faced with such moral
dilemmas, should have resisted the temptation to act. Arming a multi-national coalition of
Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s well after the destruction of the
Marine barracks in Beirut or the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 was one of those times.


Terrorist backer?
Bin Laden is the heir to Saudi construction fortune who, at least since the early 1990s, has used that
money to finance countless attacks on U.S. interests and those of its Arab allies around the world.

Osama bin Laden's network ... By 1984, he was running a front organization
known as Maktab al-Khidamar the MAK which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside
world into the Afghan war. What the CIA bio conveniently fails to
specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's
state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's
primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation.
By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan's mujahedeen. His money
gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle, but the vast majority of those who
fought and died for Afghanistan's freedom like the Taliban regime that now holds sway
over most of that tortured nation were Afghan nationals.
Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by
Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to
'read' than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove
troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet
for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt,
Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East,
became the 'reliable' partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.

WHAT'S 'INTELLIGENT' ABOUT THIS? Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the
agency as something of a dilettante a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by

the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.
In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had
split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida,
that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind
violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible
for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has
massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants,
responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access
to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move
in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate
Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem
that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do
subsequently. 'It was worth it,' he said. 'Those were very important, pivotal
matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,' he said.


It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden's connection to these
activities is mostly classified, though its hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take
credit for a Frankenstein's monster like this.
It is also worth acknowledging that it is easier now to oppose the CIA's Afghan
adventures than it was when Hatch and company made them in the mid-1980s. After all, in
1998 we now know that far larger elements than Afghanistan were corroding the communist
party's grip on power in Moscow. Even Hatch can't be blamed completely.
The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its 'mission,' had conclusive evidence by the
mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within the Soviet Union. The
CIA, as its deputy director William Gates acknowledged under congressional questioning
in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence from President Reagan and his top advisors
and instead continued to grossly exaggerate Soviet military and technological
capabilities in its annual 'Soviet Military Power' report right up to 1990.
Given that context, a decision was made to provide America's potential enemies
with the arms, money and most importantly the knowledge of how to run a war of
attrition violent and well-organized enough to humble a superpower.
That decision is coming home to roost.
Michael Moran is MSNBC's International Editor

Osama bin Laden's American Business Ties



Terrorism -- fact and fiction When President Clinton announced the missile strikes against terrorist bases
in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons plant in Sudan last week, the issues seemed pretty clear cut.
Even for those of us who suspected the timing of these attacks had more to do
with Clinton's personal scandals than real foreign policy objectives, we had
few doubts that bad guys had actually been targeted.
Remember what the president said? He claimed he stayed "up till 2:30 in the
morning trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no
night shift." Right out of Michael Douglas' script in "The American
President," Clinton added, "I didn't want some person who was a nobody to me, but
who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea
what else was going on there, to die needlessly...."
Now let's keep in mind that President Clinton personally chose the bombing
site, a medicine factory with a United Nations contract, from among a larger set
of targets presented to him by military planners....

Then there's the matter of Osama. We're certainly getting a different picture of
this terrorist than we got from the early reports by the Clinton administration.
It turns out Osama bin Laden's family is one of the richest of the rich -- worth
an estimated $5 billion. It's a pretty well-connected family, too. His brother
is a director of the U.S. telecommunications giant Iridium, which
is set to launch a revolutionary new global satellite communications system.
And guess who has launched Iridium's satellites into space? You guessed it.
Clinton's friends in China. And who are the family's partners on Iridium?
Clinton's friends at the Loral Corp. and Hughes Electronics. The family also does
millions of dollars of business with the U.S. government, having built an Air
Force base for us in Saudi Arabia after Osama was blamed for blowing up the

Khobar Towers in 1996.

So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our facilities, and his family gets
the contract for rebuilding them. Do you get the feeling there is more going on
here than meets the eye?
Then there are the questions concerning the other targets of our cruise missile
attacks -- Osama's terrorist bases in Afghanistan. Of course, Osama survived
the attacks, having, apparently, been tipped off in advance.
Was he really the target? Or were these attacks one more example of what the
Clinton administration has become famous for -- symbolism over substance. If the
U.S. really wanted Osama, he could have been picked up any number of times in the
past on his frequent visits to America, when he has stayed at the finest hotels
in New York...
There are reports even from Afghanistan that more than terrorists were hit.
Normally, we could dismiss accounts that mosques were struck as predictable
political propaganda by anti-American extremists. But, with the track record of
the Clinton administration insofar as truth is concerned ... just whom are we
to believe?


Revista electrónica

Asociación HuSe
CIF: G18538876
TF: (0044) (0) 7778379805
United Kingdom

Dentro de