Saturday, March 8, 2008

The CIA, Bin Laden, and a whole lot of Asphalt

One of the favorite rallying cries of the left when it comes to US Cold War Foreign policy is in regards to Osama Bin Laden. As we all know, the US armed the Afghan resistance and helped them to defeat the Soviet Union. Leftists love this because they can claim that 9/11 was America's fault. But is there claim legitimate? Well, first lets review the facts.

The US spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Soviet-style arms to funnel to the Afghan resistance. The weapons were received by the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and then transported into Afghanistan. As many people now know thanks to the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" the Saudis were matching all US funding. But, one thing not mentioned in the laugh-riot of a movie is that Saudi Intelligence did a little fundraising on the side involving some ultra-fundamentalist Saudi religious charities. This is where things get complicated.

The left, especially University Professors at an unnamed State University located in Northern Arizona and certain segments of the media love to state that the CIA recruited and funded Bin Laden. IE...the US radicalized Bin laden and taught him how to be a terrorist. This is completely false.



Lets take a look at Osama Bin Laden's past shall we? Osama Bin Laden is a member of the Bin Laden family (duh!). They a welathy and prestigious family in Saudi Arabia with numerous links to the Saudi royal family. The Bin Laden family are contractors. They had been hired on numerous occasions by the Saudi government to build public facilities, roads, etc. Quite simply, they are very successful construction contractors with alot of connections with the royal family. Osama Bin Laden, as a young man attended King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda. He graduated with a degree in economics and public administration which makes sense considering his families line of work.

So, most people wonder how a man who had everything became so radicalized? Well, one must look at his time spent at the prestigious (no women allowed) King Abdul Aziz University. Apart from being a Saudi university, two of Osama Bin Laden's professors stand out as being a bit radical one may say. The first one is Mohammed Qutb. He's not that famous, but his brother sure as hell is. Mohammed's brother, Sayyid Qutb was one of the founding members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which to this day remains one of the most mainstream radical Islamic organizations in the world. Hamas, is considered the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sayyid Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government for plotting to assassinate Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for daring to make peace with Israel. Needless to say, Mohammed Qutb is just as radical as his brother. He's famous for writing the book, Islam: The Misunderstood Religion in which he kindly describes how fundamentalist Islam is superior to the savage and perverted west.

The second professor was none other than Abdullah Azam, who later became one of the spiritual founders of Hamas. I would say its pretty clear that Osama Bin Laden got a healthy serving of fundamentalist dogma when he was attending King Abdul Aziz University. This is contradictory to that I've been told by left-wing media outlets and university professors. I've been consistently told that the US recruited and armed Osama Bin Laden, and I think that that is the prevailing belief amongst most Americans today. There are mixed reports as to when Osama Bin Laden first went to Afghanistan. However, it is known that he met Afghan rebel leaders at the annual Hajj in Saudi Arabia and was inspired by them.

But, lets move on. Back in Afghanistan the battle is raging and the Soviets are starting to lose ground to the Afghan resistance. It is important to note that the Afghan resistance was far from unified. There were moderates and fundamentalist groups both fighting the Soviets. The majority of the funding went to the extremists, because well, they fight better, or so the CIA said. There were a few reasons as to how the extremists got a greater amount of support. One was what I just stated, and the other was that the Saudi money that was being pumped into financing the Afghan resistance wasn't necessary;y under the control of the CIA. The Saudi GID, or General Intelligence Division saw this as not just an opportunity to give Russia bloody nose, but to push their political beliefs. Saudi Arabia, with the encouragement of then Pakistani President Zia, constructed hundreds of Saudi madrassas (religious schools) along the border. The madrassas were used to spread fundamentalist Islam in the region because as we already know the fundamentalists fight better.

In order to train the Afghan resistance, numerous training camps were set up along the border with Afghanistan. As we consistently here in the news these days, the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan are fairly primitive. Getting weapons and fighters to these camps was proving to be a problem. There needed to be someway to better get supplies to the camps, while keeping the existence of the camps a secret. This was surely a problem. If only there was a group that was experienced in constructing roads that could be trusted. Perhaps someone whom the Saudi Royal family knew and trusted. AHA! The Bin laden family. They were trusted and experienced. The perfect choice! Enter: Osama Bin laden.

Osama Bin Laden, being a bit radical, wanted to be a successful business man and do his part for the global jihad. So, he left to Pakistan to build a system of roads that would connect the numerous training camps along the border of Afghanistan. Who hired and sent him there? Saudi Intelligence. Was it to go jihading and get uber amounts of money from the CIA? No. It was to build roads. He had always been interested in Jihading since he graduated, but his official capacity in Pakistan was to build roads, or so Saudi Intelligence maintains.

This is where we get back to the issue of unilateral Saudi actions in Pakistan that I mentioned beforehand. Saudi intelligence funneled funding and weapons to Afghan commanders that it favored, outside of the control of the Pakistani ISI or the CIA. The ISI and the CIA both knew about it, but did little to really stop it. What was unknown however, was how strong Osama Bin Laden's connections with Saudi Intelligence really were. The Saudi GID holds that they had occasional meetings with Osama Bin Laden, but that he was not being used to funnel money and arms to resistance groups that were favored by Saudi Arabia. Nor do they claim that he was there to lead them into battle against the Soviets. All of this is a bit murky and has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the Saudi government is unlikely to admit that Osama Bin Laden was their agent and that they actively funded and encouraged him to battle the Soviets.

What is known is that Osama Bin Laden actively engaged in battle against the Soviets and made a reputation for himself amongst the Afghan resistance as a brave and capable commander. Upon the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden created his own terrorist organization. And the rest is history...

What is clear is that the CIA did not fund Osama Bin Laden. The CIA did not arm Osama Bin Laden. And most importantly, the CIA did not actively recruit Osama Bin laden to go to Afghanistan and lead Saudi-backed Afghan rebels into battle against the Soviets. It is evident that he had an interest in Jihad ever since he graduated from from his university. He appears to have worked under the auspices of Saudi Intelligence with the understanding that he was in Pakistan to build roads. Whether or not there was more to his job remains a question, but it is one that only the Saudi's can answer. Please note that I said the Saudis, and not the CIA. There has been no evidence whatsoever that links the CIA with Osama Bin Laden. Merely stating that the CIA funded the Afghans and that because Osama Bin laden took part in the war, does not mean in any way that he was funded by or recruited by them.


Want to know where I got my information? The majority of it is from "Ghost Wars, The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden. from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001." by Steve Coll. Specifically, chapters 4, 5, and 6.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

US arming Fatah. Whats the worse that could happen?

And to think. There are people out there that think the Republicans are best qualified to fight the War on Terror.

Apparently, the US is sending money and arms to Fatah. Don't know who Fatah is? And you're a Republican? I rest my case.


We all hate Hamas. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and have launched literally hundreds of rockets at Israeli towns in the last few weeks. They are Islamic extremists in every sense of the word. They are the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian based Muslim Brotherhood. They are dedicated to nothing less than the complete and utter destruction of Israel. However, notice that I didn't mention suicide bombings. Hamas definitely loves a good suicide bombing now and again, but they are hardly the only Palestinian faction to engage in that kind of action.

Fatah, which was founded by among others, Yasser Arafat. Fatah has a history of terrorist attacks and links to other terrorist organizations such as Black September. The current militant wing of Fatah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is still a declared enemy of Israel. The only difference is that they are also an enemy of Hamas.

Some notable suicide bombings committed by the group were:

On October 16, 2005, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for a shooting attack at the Gush Etzion Junction, killing three Israelis and wounding three others.


but, back to the Fatah-Hamas thing. The US hates Hamas. They have connections with Islamic terror organizations across the globe and there are persistent rumors that they are being armed and trained by Iran and Syria. Not to mention they are vehemently anti-American. So, in the spirit of NSC-68, the US is doing what it does best. Arming the enemies of our enemies. Anyone with a working knowledge of Cold War history should shudder at this idea.


We did this in Afghanistan. And after having read a few books on US involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war, I'm convinced it was the right move because our primary enemy was the Soviet Union. BUT, that isn't to say these decisions don't come back to haunt us. The CIA calls this "blowback." We (along with the Saudis) funded the most fanatical of the Afghan resistance groups because as the CIA stated "Fanatics fight better." The Soviets ended up losing and it was sweet sweet revenge considering they armed our enemies in Vietnam. However, after the Soviet withdrawal the fanatical Afghan groups seized control of Afghanistan and the moderate Afghan groups were marginalized. Today, we know the fanatics as a different name, the Taliban.


Want another example. How about the fact that we armed Saddam Hussein and provided Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian military positions during the Iraq-Iran war. Probably not our best move either. Don't get me wrong, Iran is America's enemy in every sense of the word, but that doesn't mean Iraq wasn't either.


Over the last year Hamas has seized complete control of the Gaza Strip. Fatah still controls the West Bank. In effect the two sections of the Palestinian territories are controlled by two different parties. Of course, Bush in all his wisdom has deduced that if the US sends arms to Fatah than they can do battle with Hamas. Interesting idea, but it disregards the fact that there is collusion between Fatah and Hamas members. Which has already become clear due to the fact that Hamas has come into possession of the weapons meant for Fatah. Whoops!

Hamas is definitely more dangerous than Fatah, but what makes us think that Fatah is itself not an enemy. Israel is America's closest ally on the planet, and Fatah is still an enemy of Israel. Remember the enemy of our enemy is our friend idea that so well characterized the alliance between the US and USSR during WWII? We aren't the only country that uses that line of reasoning. The Middle East has such an incredibly dynamic geo-political climate that we have no idea what is in store for us down the road. Even if Hamas were to lose power to Fatah, there is still the rising power of Iran and Syria to deal with. Not to mention the increasingly overt actions of Hezbollah. Only an idiot would think that Fatah would be our partners in peace once Hamas is gone. Israel's enemies are gaining power like never before, and they'll be damned if they let Fatah cozy up to Israel and America now. If presented with the opportunity to destroy Israel don't think for a second that Fatah wouldn't jump at it. Their entire history says they would. And when we are drug into another conflict in the Middle East, don't be surprised when our enemies are shooting at us with our own weapons.

Hezbollah says presence of US warships threatens regional stability

Apparently the Middle East has been stable prior to this. Who knew?

read the article here

Sunday, March 2, 2008