On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was the
day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the
White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods
where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the
Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day
of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC
building trades and up-market realtors.
One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck
that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to
many civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile
Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had
taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little
dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil
and gas Cheney/Bush junta.
Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is
pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers
(formerly the people) will never learn of.
Even so, we have been getting
some answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11?
Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told
there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001,
but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings
from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our
A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19
September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist
Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly
in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.
Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various
threats seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are
at war' with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that
by 20 September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time
From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001:
'We believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist
attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks.
will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US
facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made.
occur with little or no warning.' And so it came to pass; yet Condoleezza
Rice, the National Security Advisor, says she never suspected that this
meant anything more than the kidnapping of planes.
Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe - recently
declared anti-Semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no war
with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to understand
thanks to European and Asian investigators with their relatively free media.
On the subject 'How and Why America was Attacked on 11
September, 2001', the best, most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez
Mossadeq Ahmed ... Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know
things that we don't - particularly about what we are up to.
scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research
and Development 'a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of human rights,
justice and peace' in Brighton. His book, 'The War on Freedom', has just
been published in the US by a small but reputable publisher.
Ashmed provides a background for our ongoing war against
Afghanistan, a view that in no way coincides with what the administration
has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American
whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and hear witness - like those
FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was planning a
kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they
went public with these warnings they would suffer under the National
Several of these agents have engaged David P. Schippers, chief
investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee, to represent
them in court.
The majestic Schippers managed the successful impeachment of
President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war
should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who
allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two
of our cities as pre-emption of a planned military strike by the US against
The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a
group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former
State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message from the
Bush administration that 'the United States was so disgusted with the
Taliban that they might be considering some military action ... the chilling
quality of this private warning was that it came - according to one of those
present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik - accompanied by specific details
of how Bush would succeed ...' Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported
that 'Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American
military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New
York and Washington ... [which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was
launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.' A
replay of the 'day of infamy' in the Pacific 62 years earlier?
Why the US needed a Eurasian adventure
On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security
presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic
and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war.
According to NBC News: 'President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans
for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before
the terrorist attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was
essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September.
The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly
... because it
simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'
Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former
Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in
mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the
middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war
for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the
Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the
3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is
convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no
scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with
zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us,
'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not.
Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds
to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and
conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been 'contingency' some
years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's
out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the
assault on the warship Cole.
Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy
Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very
much in her role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties
regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and
a half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd
Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the
necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what?
What is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering?
Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations
study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic
The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security
Advisor to President Carter. In 'The Grand Chessboard', Brzezinski gives a
little history lesson. 'Ever since the continents started interacting
politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world
Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means Russia, the
Middle East, China and parts of India. Brzezinski acknowledges that Russia
and China, bordering oil-rich central Asia, are the two main powers
threatening US hegemony in that area.
He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the
former Soviet republics of Central Asia, known to those who love them as
'the Stans': Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan all 'of
importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at
least three of their most immediate and most powerful neighbours - Russia,
Turkey and Iran, with China signaling'.
Brzezinski notes how the world's
energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas
will control the world economy. Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the
standard American rationalization for empire;. We want nothing, ever, for
ourselves, only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to
hurt good people. 'It follows that America's primary interest is to help
ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space
and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access
Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully
ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping just
short of invoking politically incorrect 'manifest destiny'. He reminds the
Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of the world's
population is Eurasian.
If I have done the sums right, that means that we've
only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent of the world's folks. More!
'Eurasia accounts for 60-per cent of the world's GNP and three-fourths of
the world's known energy resources.'
Brzezinski's master plan for 'our' globe has obviously been
accepted by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by
Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning.
Ahmed sums up: 'Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the
establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over
Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open-ended
militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture
of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.'
Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to
seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did not
want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars, but President
Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President Roosevelt maneuvered the
Japanese into striking the first blow at Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter
the Second as the result of a massive external attack. Brzezinski
understands all this and, in 1997, he is thinking ahead - as well as
'Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural
society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign
policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely
perceived direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that
belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon.
Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonized as a Satanic
terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks - contrary, it should be
noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed, accurately, it
would seem, as an Islamic zealot.
In order to bring this evil-doer to
justice ('dead or alive'), Afghanistan, the object of the exercise was made
safe not only for democracy but for Union Oil of California whose proposed
pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean
port of Karachi, had been abandoned under the Taliban's chaotic regime.
Currently, the pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta's installation
of a Unocal employee (John J Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born
democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le Monde, a
former employee of a Unocal subsidiary.
Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which
had managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, - abruptly
replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has been hard
to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with 9/11. Happily,
'evidence' is now being invented. But it is uphill work, not helped by
stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of Iraq which must - for the
sake of the free world - be reassigned to US and European consortiums.
As Brzezinski foretold, 'a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat' made it possible for the President to dance a war
dance before Congress. 'A long war!' he shouted with glee. Then he named an
incoherent Axis of Evil to be fought. Although Congress did not give him the
FDR Special - a declaration of war - he did get permission to go after Osama
who may now be skulking in Iraq.
Bush and the dog that did not bark
Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of
unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are
usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that
there are no conspiracies in American life.
Yet, a year or so ago, who would
have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with
accountants to cook their books since - well, at least the bright days of
Reagan and deregulation. Ironically, less than a year after the massive
danger from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from
within: Golden Calf capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater
transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the skin of
a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect itself before
taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia, a potentially fatal
adventure not only for our frazzled institutions but for us the presently
Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11
September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I
can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for
'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about
her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three buildings.
Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is
commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a
crisis would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while
receiving the latest intelligence.
This is what Bush actually did - or did not do - according to
Stan Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and
doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in 'The So-called Evidence is a Farce':
'I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about
the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Four planes get
hijacked and deviate from their flight plan, all the while on FAA radar.'
Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts,
cannot fathom why the government's automatic 'standard order of procedure in
the event of a hijacking' was not followed. Once a plane has deviated from
its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find out why. That is law and
does not require presidential approval, which only needs to be given if
there is a decision to shoot down a plane.
Goff spells it out: 'The planes
were hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10am. Who is notified? This is an event
already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going
to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
'By around 8:15am it should be very apparent that something is
terribly wrong. The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45am, when
American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush is settling
in with children for his photo op.
Four planes have obviously been hijacked
simultaneously and one has just dived into the twin towers, and still no one
notifies the nominal Commander-in-Chief.
'No one has apparently scrambled [sent aloft] Air Force
interceptors either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At
9:05 Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush [who] "briefly turns
somber" according to reporters.
Does he cancel the school visit and convene
an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second-graders ... and
continues the banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an
unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington
'Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No.
excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement
telling the United States what they have already figured out - that there's
been an attack on the World Trade Centre.
There's a hijacked plane
bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend
anything yet? No.
'At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 [degrees] over
the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not
evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky
over Alexandria and DC.
Now the real kicker:
a pilot they want us to believe
was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas,
conducts a well-controlled downward spiral descending the last 7,000 feet in
two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips
the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with
pinpoint accuracy into the side of the building at 460 knots.
'When the theory about learning to fly this well at the
puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received
further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared
your teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying her
a video driving game ... There is a story being constructed about these
There is indeed, and the more it is added to the darker it
becomes. The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of
Staff, is as puzzling as the President's campaigning-as-usual act.
at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A sergeant, writing later
in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service) describes Myers at the Capitol.
'While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane
had hit the World Trade Centre. "They thought it was a small plane or
something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office
Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds
for the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat, the
AFPS reports, 'the second tower was hit by another jet.
"Nobody informed us
of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right
at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."' Finally, somebody
'thrust a cellphone in Myers' hand' and, as if by magic, the commanding
general of Norad - our Airspace Command - was on the line just as the
hijackers mission had been successfully completed except for the failed one
In later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee,
Myers said he thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, 'the
decision was at that point to start launching aircraft'. It was 9:40am. One
hour and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been
hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck.
This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious
army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an impeachment or
two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed until the third strike.
But the Pentagon had been overseeing the hijacked planes from at least the
moment of the strike at the first tower: yet not until the third strike, at
the Pentagon, was the decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally,
this one is the dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been
up at around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been
diverted or shot down. I don't think that Goff is being unduly picky when he
wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its normal procedure
instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the damage was done and only
then launching the fighters. Obviously, somebody had ordered the Air Force
to make no move to intercept those hijackings until ... what?
On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker
summed up on CBC-TV: 'That morning no interceptors responded in a timely
fashion to the highest alert situation.
This includes the Andrews squadrons
which ... are 12 miles from the White House ... Whatever the explanation for
the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of
reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence
usually earns reprimands.
This causes me to ask whether there were "stand
down" orders.'?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were
'only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy?
It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster
strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than ... well, yes, there
are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why
Hawaii's two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, had not
anticipated the Japanese attack.
But President Roosevelt pre-empted that
investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were broken for
incompetence. The 'truth' is still obscure to this day.
The media's weapons of mass distraction
But Pearl Harbor has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never
going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it.
2002, CNN reported that 'Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of 11
September ... The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional
leaders ... Sources said Bush initiated the conversation ... He asked that
only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential
breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist
attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry .. Tuesday's discussion
followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the
same request ...'
The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that 'resources and
personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event of a
wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know, those 'breakdowns'
are to be the goat.
That they were more likely to be not break - but
'stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the one-hour 20 minute failure
to put fighter planes in the air could not have been due to a breakdown
throughout the entire Air Force along the East Coast.
operational procedure had been told to cease and desist.
Meanwhile, the media were assigned their familiar task of
inciting public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind.
These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of
distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk
handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket with the
other. We were quickly assured that Osama's enormous family with its
enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native
Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama had not worked for
them in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally, the
rumour that Bush family had in any way profited by its long involvement with
the bin Laden family was - what else? - simply partisan bad taste.
But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his
first failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought
him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who have Bush
Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bush's firm Arbusto Energy. At this
time, according to Wayne Madsen ('In These Times' - Institute for Public
Affairs No. 25), Bath was 'the sole US business representative for Salem bin
Laden, head of the family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden... In
a statement issued shortly after the 11 September attacks, the White House
vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own
money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto.
In conflicting statements, Bush at
first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and
that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests ... after several
reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.'
Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by
the Carlyle Group which has ownership in at least 164 companies worldwide,
inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the wealthy, the Wall Street
Journal, which noted, as early as 27 September 2001, 'If the US boosts
defence spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist
activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family ...
is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected
Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace
companies ... Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden,
who built the family's $5 billion business.'
But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are
beyond shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense.
There is a
suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden connection
with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November 2001: 'FBI agents
probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama ... were told to back
off soon after George W. Bush became president ...' According to BBC TV's
Newsnight (6 Nov 2001), '... just days after the hijackers took off from
Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same
airport whisked 11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia.
not concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens are
above suspicion.' 'Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002) sums up:
'We had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community
since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it
was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr will be under oath during the
impeachment interrogation. Will we hear 'What is a directive? What is is?'
Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a
mastermind terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to 'bring
him to justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the
jungle requires. Clinton's plan to act was given to Condeleezza Rice by
Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not.
As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General
Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defence, offered to extradite him.
According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), 'Erwa said he would
happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States.
But if that
would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and
hand him over ... [US officials] said, "just ask him to leave the country.
Just don't let him go to Somalia", where he had once been given credit for
the successful al-Qaeda attack on American forces that in '93 that killed 18
Rangers.' Erwa said in an interview, 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and
they [US officials] said, "Let him."'
In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two
years later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of
never having to say thank you for Sudan's offer to hand over Osama,
proceeded to missile-attack Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory on the
grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were making
chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply making vaccines
for the UN.
Four years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent,
complained in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, 'The US State
Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's
entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt. The US ambassador
to Yemen forbade O'Neill (and his FBI team) ... from entering Yemen in
O'Neill resigned in frustration and took on a new job as head
of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the 11 September attack.'
Obviously, Osama has enjoyed bipartisan American support since his
enlistment in the CIA's war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by
9/11 there was no Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no
A world made safe for peace and pipelines
I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was given and
the 'long war' proclaimed.
Iraq, Iran and North Korea were fingered as
enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not be harbouring
terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the night. So we must strike
first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we declared 'war on terrorism' - an
abstract noun which cannot be a war at all as you need a country for that.
Of course, there was innocent Afghanistan, which was levelled from a great
height, but then what's collateral damage - like an entire country - when
you're targeting the personification of all evil according to Time and the
NY Times and the networks?
As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with
Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively
stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its
pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta.
Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might
be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were
invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training
Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News,
(4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company Unocal said the Taliban were
expected to spend several days at the company's [Texas] headquarters ... a
BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across
Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing
the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.'
The Inter Press Service (IPS)
reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the
movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions and
impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United States wants good ties
[with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them while women are being
The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR
one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In
October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has been given
the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from
Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..' This was a real coup for Unocal
as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezza's old
employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its
imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting
big bucks, fearlessly announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the
players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in
history.' The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut.
'The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would
act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the possibility of new
trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.'
But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could not provide the
security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines.
The arrival of
Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the bidding.
New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration soon buys the
idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr, head of the Central
Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Washington Post (19
December 2000): 'The US has quietly begun to align itself with those in the
Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has
toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out bin Laden.'
Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance
on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American
citizens, once that 'war' was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and
so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-project. In the light of
what we know today, it is unlikely that the junta was ever going to capture
Osama alive: he has tales to tell.
One of Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's best numbers now is: 'Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There?
Somewhere? Who knows?' And we get his best twinkle.
He must also be
delighted - and amazed - that the media have bought the absurd story that
Osama, if alive, would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be
flushed out instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta,
2,000 miles to the East and easily accessible by Flying Carpet One.
Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our
junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists and
then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the injured - or
threatened - party before he struck.
But he had many great predecessors not
least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's War in Afghanistan: A $28 Billion
Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, 'in 1919, described ancient Rome in a
way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2001: "There was no corner
of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or
under actual attack.
If the interests were not Roman, they were those of
Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented ...
The fight was always invested with an aura of legality.
Rome was always
being attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have only outdone the Romans
in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into
actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to
maintain turbulence in foreign lands.
As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over
Washington DC to get world opinion used to the idea that 'Bush of
Afghanistan' had gained a title as mighty as his father's 'Bush of the
Persian Gulf' and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem.
These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so many lead
weights. But something new has been added since the classic Roman Hitlerian
mantra, 'they are threatening us, we must attack first'. Now everything is
more of less out in the open. The International Herald Tribune wrote in
August 2002: 'The leaks began in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times
described a tentative Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a
US force of up to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and
On 10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the
invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that "many senior US
military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat
..."' And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally, this is the
sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the Congress, not military
bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the people. But that sort of
debate has, for a long time, been denied us.
One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable
in imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to
provocation. The Tribune continues: 'Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to jail
any one found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army general,
Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. "We may already be
executing a plan," he said recently.
"Are we involved in a preliminary
psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify a US
attack or make concessions?
Somebody knows.' That is plain.
Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise
William Pfaff writes: 'A second Washington debate is whether to make an
unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being built
with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which
Iran is a signatory ... No other government would support such an action,
other than Israel's (which) would do so not because it expected to be
attacked by Iran but because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear
capacity in the hands of any Islamic government.'
Suspect states and the tom-toms of revenge
'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be
dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. As the
parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for
bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the
discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of
seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people
...' Thus, James Madison warned us at the dawn of our republic.
Post 9/11, thanks to the 'domination of the few', Congress and
the media are silent while the executive, through propaganda and skewed
polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centers of power like
Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top of the Defence
Department) are being constructed and 4 per cent of the country has recently
been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy system to report on anyone who
looks suspicious or ... who objects to what the executive is doing at home
Although every nation knows how - if it has the means and the
will - to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is
not an option. Wars are for nations not root-less gangs. You put a price on
their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that
with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo.
But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate
Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasia's Stans
for their business associates as well as to do as much damage to Iraq and
Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may carpet our fields
of amber grain with anthrax or something.
The media, never much good a analysis, are more and more
breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to
hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once
our ally and 'friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. 'None of
that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is
now shorthand for unspeakable truth.
As of August, at least among economists, a consensus was growing
that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day to keep
the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the junta in order
to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national wealth, there is no
way that we could ever find the billions needed to destroy Iraq in 'a long
war' or even a short one, with most of Europe lined up against us. Germany
and Japan paid for the Gulf War, reluctantly - with Japan, at the last
moment, irritably quarrelling over the exchange rate at the time of the
contract. Now Germany's Schroder has said no. Japan is mute.
But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of
the world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the
cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group, Bush Jnr
formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice, formerly of
Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental).
If ever an administration should
recuse itself in matters dealing with energy, it is the current junta. But
this is unlike any administration in our history. Their hearts are plainly
elsewhere, making money, far from our mock Roman temples, while we, alas,
are left only with their heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak
Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and
sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: 'Bin
Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude.
When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there.
Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was
monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani
intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have
kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and
The former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service,
Eckehardt Werthebach (American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it out.
The 9/11 attacks required 'years of planning' while their scale indicates
that they were a product of 'state-organised actions'. There it is. Perhaps,
after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war. But which state attacked us?
Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? 'No, no. Why we
are paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our
own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well-educated
enemies but ...' Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look. Egypt? No way.
Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds. Iran? Too proud to bother
with a parvenu state like the US. Israel? Sharon is capable of anything.
he lacks the guts and the grace of the true Kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not
in charge when this operation began with the planting of 'sleepers' around
the US flight schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of
corporate America would undeniably prosper from a 'massive external attack'
that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the President sees
fit while suspending civil liberties.
(The 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act
were plainly prepared before 9/11.)
Bush Snr and Jnr are giggling now.
Because Clinton was president back then. As the former president leaves the
line of suspects, he says, more in anger than in sorrow: 'When we left the
White House we had a plan for an all-out war on al-Qaeda. We turned it over
to this administration and they did nothing. Why?' Biting his lip, he goes.
The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: 'I did it! I confess! I
couldn't help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!'
Apparently, Pakistan did do it - or some of it. We must now go
back to 1997 when 'the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA'
was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asia
specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999):
'With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services
Intelligence) 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's fight between 1982 and '92
... more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by
the Afghanistan jihad.' The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these
In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security
Decision Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met
with the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Jane's Defence Weekly
(14 September 2001) gives the best overview: 'The trainers were mainly from
Pakistan's ISI agency who learnt their craft from American Green Beret
commandos and Navy Seals in various US training establishments.'
explains the reluctance of the administration to explain why so many
unqualified persons, over so long a time, got visas to visit our hospitable
shores. While in Pakistan, 'mass training of Afghan [zealots] was
subsequently conducted by the Pakistan army under the supervision of the
elite Special Services ... In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created
al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist
cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to
When Mohamed Atta's plane struck the World Trade Centre's North Tower,
George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary school were
discussing her goat.
By coincidence, our word 'tragedy' comes from the
Greek: for 'goat' tragos plus oide for 'song'. 'Goat-song'. It is highly
suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr plays, should have been
heard again at the exact moment when we were struck by fire from heaven, and
a tragedy whose end is nowhere in sight began for us.
© Gore Vidal