A historical briefing on the tragedy of 9/11

 

U.S. policymakers are now in a drive toward unity around the war on terrorism. It is at this crucial moment that a debate on U.S. foreign and military policy in the world is critical. In the Cold War period, debate over foreign policy was quashed by the charge that questioning U.S. foreign policy was tantamount to being “soft on communism”. Now there is a similar potential that debate will be silenced by the specter of a new implacable, faceless, demonic specter — terrorism. However, this would be a tragic development, as the root of much of the current crisis is the often-secretive policies pursued by the U.S.  This is not to suggest that the horrible and despicable attack on the World Trade Center was deserved or warranted. Indeed, this act deserves to be prosecuted and vilified. Still, we need to reexamine U.S. foreign policy so that justice, liberty and democracy—values that we claim to stand for—are truly served. While much of the mass media and policymakers are suggesting that fanaticism that drove the terrorists can only be handled with force and violence, much evidence to suggests that terrorism has resulted from the force and violence condoned and financed by the U.S.

 

While many Americans believe that their foreign policy promotes democracy, liberty and justice across the globe, much of the rest of the world does not recognize this as the goal. What is the source of this disconnect?  In the wake of the Cold War, the U.S. designed a national security apparatus that reinforced secrecy and discouraged citizens’ involvement in the development of U.S. foreign policy. U.S. policymakers assumed that capitalism, and its search for markets and investment policies, defined progress for the peoples of the world. Anyone who resisted or attempted to create alternatives was in the Soviet Union’s camp and needed to be eliminated.  This policy direction was strengthened by Cold War rhetoric that divided the world into Soviet and US camps, even when those countries were striving for a “third” way.  The “greater evil” of the USSR justified assassinations and coups, civilian deaths, military buildups and arms transfers that most Americans would probably not have approved if they had been fully informed.  In the process, the creation of mortal enemies began. Since these policies have been explicitly undemocratic—the American public has been kept in the dark by design—the American public continues to reel in disbelief of why anyone would despise us. We, too, have been victims of disinformation.

 

Even the CIA itself acknowledges that terrorism is the consequence of previous U.S. campaigns and policies.  The CIA calls this “blowback” (a term invented after the U..S. overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to keep the country from nationalizing the oil fields) . In fact, one could argue that the 9/11 tragedy was a blowback expected by the CIA from previous U.S. policies and actions in the region under consideration. It is vital for us to understand the past, or else we may find ourselves facing further blowback consequences. At this time, the CIA is being unleashed from previous tethers such as the ban on assassinating foreign leaders. What does history have to inform us about the dangers of this policy?

 

In the Middle East, most of U.S. policies in the past 50 years have been built around establishing western “entitlement” to oil and around preventing Soviet access to it. In addition, the U.S. has sought to open these areas to western investment and modernization on the assumption that the entire world should develop like the U.S. Since the 1970s, much of the oil money of the region has been invested in U.S. and British banks. Oil money bankrolls U.S. debt, and thus oil serves as a prop for the entire U.S. economy based on debt. U.S. foreign policy is designed to preserve the role of the U.S. as “global policeman”  for development based on western models The U.S. government, often acting through the CIA, has promoted fundamentalist religious groups and military dictatorships around the world in order to protect the world financial system and their globalization policies. 

 

A briefing on some of the U.S. history in the region now of concern to us:

 

Iran,

1953 : The U.S. organized a coup that overthrew a democratic government in Iran. Mohammed Mossedeq wanted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company. (Britain controlled the oil through colonial policy, Iranians were not benefitting from the oil revenues) The U.S. wrote a cold-war script, and through the CIA, (in a mission led by Kermit Roosevelt and  Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr.)  toppled Mossedeq and brought in the Shah of Iran. The Shah established Iran as “client state” of the U.S. and kept dissidents under control with the hated Savak, a secret police that used CIA information to brutally persecute and murder dissidents. In 1972, as part of the “Nixon doctrine” of using military police instead of U.S. troops to shore up U.S. role around the world, a policy that developed from fallout from Vietnam war, Kissinger gave wide latitude and more CIA assistance to the Shah. Iran used the following military build-up to keep population under control, and the Savak grew in power. The Shah provided U.S. access to military bases and intelligence facilities, helping the U.S. to control flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to U.S. trading partners. In reaction to the Shah's rule, reformers were attracted to the ulama, the clerical class, who were relatively  independent of the regime. Thus U.S. policy, which attacked the secular left as Soviet sympathizers or threats to oil interests, strengthened the political power and sophistication of the ulama.  Repression led to the first major growth of Islamic fundamentalism.  Shiite cleric Ayatollah Khomeini instilled in his followers a hatred for all things Western. In 1979, students took over the U.S. embassy, claiming it was a base for CIA repression.  Khomeini launched a  “holy war” against U.S. outposts.  In 1985, despite a strict official policy of refusing to cut deals with terrorists, the Reagan administration illegally aided Iranian fundamentalists, trading arms for hostages. While Iran used these arms in its war with Iraq, money from the sales funded U.S. support for the Contras in their war against Nicaragua’s revolutionary government. Such aid was specifically prohibited by Congress in the 1984 Boland Amendment.

Iraq

During the early 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran (1980-1988) in the belief that Ayatollah Khomeini’s attempts to export his Islamic revolution and strong anti-Americanism to the rest of the Persian Gulf represented the greater threat to U.S. interests. U.S. refused sanctions when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and when it used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians. The war, funded by more than $5 billion in U.S. support, caused 1 million deaths. The U.S. Navy intervened in the Persian Gulf against Iran in 1987, further bolstering the Iraqi war effort. The Reagan and Bush administrations dismissed concerns about human rights abuses by Saddam’s totalitarian regime. Such special treatment likely led the Iraqi dictator to believe that appeasement would continue. In fact, evidence suggests that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq encouraged the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Arab mediation was underway for Iraq’s withdrawal when U.S. announced its intention to intervene militarily. However, the Bush administration quickly manipulated the American public into calling him the next “Hitler”. Getting rid of the “Vietnam” syndrome and protecting Saudi Arabia, a U.S. client state (see below) motivated the U.S. to intervene. The six-week war of aerial bombardment followed by a blitzkrieg in the desert killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians, mostly civilians. During the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency records reveal, the U.S. targeted an underground civilian shelter incinerating hundreds. It bombed the civilian infrastructure, destroying the civilian water supply by bombing water purification plants, flagrantly violating the rules of the Geneva Convention. (Similar war crimes brought Slobodan Milosevic to the UN War Crimes Tribunal).  Most Americans were unaware; in fact, most believed U.S. “smart bombs” hit only military targets. Thus we could feel secure in a war that seemed more like a video. U.S. conducted major air strikes against Iraq in 1993 and 1996. Illegal air strikes have occurred on a weekly basis since 1999. (The U.N has not sanctioned and the U.S. Congress has not approved the bombings) The ongoing air campaign and harsh economic sanctions have prevented the rebuilding of the water supply and other infrastructure. UNICEF has estimated that ten years of sanctions have killed an estimated 500,000 children.  Asked in a 60 Minutes interview about the level of civilian deaths in 1996, then Secretary of State Madeline replied, “we think the price is worth it.”

 

Afghanistan

Before the CIA assisted the current network of “fundamentalist” terrorist organizations for its own purposes during the Afghan war in the 1980s, only a few tiny isolated groups existed. 

 

Starting in 1979, the U.S. made alliances with fundamentalist exiles from Afghanistan to fight a pro-Soviet government. That government came to power in 1978 in a military coup after its party was outlawed by the state. It was committed to a radical land reform that favored the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality and emancipation for women and the separation of church and state; this government had little popular support and alienated a number of important groups, especially landlords and fundamentalists, who sought U.S. support to topple the regime and establish a non-secular state. The U.S. backed the mujahudeen, the most radical fundamentalists, despite the fact that there were several secular and nationalist Afghan groups opposed to the Moscow-backed government. President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, made alliance with the most radical fundamentalists, in mid-1979, before the Soviet invasion of December 1979, in a plan designed to goad the Soviet Union to intervene militarily. Soviet records reveal that they invaded in response to U.S. preparations for military support, as well as to the threat of fundamentalism from Iran, not to the internal Afghan conflict. When the Soviet Union did intervene, Carter issued the “Carter Doctrine” to a joint session of Congress: "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America [and] will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." (The Carter Doctrine was later used to justify intervention in Kuwait after Iraq occupied it.)

 

In the Afghan War, the U.S. backed those who sought to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilize the Soviet Union (This fact helps explain why Russia is now amenable to U.S. intervention, they want to rid themselves of the “Muslim problem” that has created unrest in Central Asian states adjoining Afghanistan).

 

The US, through the CIA, financed the mujahudeen, who we then called  “freedom fighters,” even when they were doing things like chopping off the heads of captured Russian soldiers. Part of the purpose was to create a powerful counterweight to the ideology of communism, and the CIA believed that fundamentalism was that counterweight: it wanted to demonstrate that the entire Muslim world was fighting the Soviet Union alongside the Afghans and their American financers. This was a mercenary army recruited from a variety of states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, North Africa.

 

A U.S.-Saudi-Pakistan alliance financed, trained and armed 30,000 or more. Recruiting of fundamentalists was financed and supervised by the CIA and carried out through Pakistan’s secret service, the ISI.  U.S ($5 billion + spent) and Saudi -supplied weapons and cash were launched, with the most important rebel movement handled by the CIA, who dispensed money to Pakistan-based intelligence camps that trained the “freedom fighters” in terrorist tactics and indoctrinated them with fanatic religious ideology. Muslims recruited in the U.S. were trained for duty at U.S. CIA camps; some of these are implicated in 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies. Osama bin Laden was the nominal leader of 4000 volunteers from Saudi Arabia. In 1989 he took charge of a division of the ISI that got the most CIA support and training.

 

U.S. made stronger alliances with dictatorships of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in order to carry off the plan, including alliances that built ties between the CIA and drug trafficking and the wealthy Saudi royal families. The CIA also condoned Pakistan’s ISI (see below) involvement in drug trafficking as a means to raise money for the anti-Soviet resistance. U.S. policymakers recognized that much of the funding of the war was gained from heroin sales that was financed by addicts in the U.S., but explicitly looked the other way when U.S. DEA officials pointed this out.

 

Keep in mind that this policy originated at a time when the U.S. was demonizing the Iranian fundamentalists, calling them antithetical to the American way of life.  US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979). The multi-national network now in place was to a significant extent of the CIA’s making.

 

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. abandoned the region, leaving it bombed out, mine-filled and in extremely impoverished conditions, with little infrastructure. There was no rebuilding of the area that was desperately needed in the aftermath of a devastating war.  Arabs who had fought in the war had a heightened political consciousness that made them think that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were just as much “client” regimes of the U.S. as had the Najibullah (pro-Soviet) Afghan regime had been of Moscow. Now they had the guerrilla as well as high-tech (CIA-funded) skills to combat these states

 

For 3-4 years after the Soviet Union and U.S. abandoned the region, internecine warfare over control of Afghanistan continued.  Pakistan, with U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s support, backed the Taliban (a political/religious sect which developed out of Pakistan’s religious schools, the original base from which the mujahudeen were recruited). By 1996, the Taliban took power and imposed a harsh fundamentalist regime on the urban areas of Afghanistan. Poverty and drought keeps the people of Afghanistan (80 percent of the population is subsistence farmers outside the urban areas) incapable of revolting against this regime. Farmers have turned to growing opium as a last resort against starvation.

 

Evidence suggests that the U.S. “tolerated” the Taliban until 1998 due to the oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics. In 1996 when the Taliban took power,  the U.S. response was initially optimistic. Taliban officials met with Unocal Corporation officials in Texas, with the quiet support of U.S. government officials. Unocal offered a generous cut of the profits from a deal to run pipelines through Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of the former USSR.  Pakistan and Turkey were key allies for the U.S. corporate minions in this venture.  With this in mind a U.S. diplomat remarked that Taliban rule  would be similar to Saudi Arabia: “there will be pipelines, an emir,  no parliament…We can live with that”. This prospect fell through, but it is a very telling demonstration of U.S. interests in the region that preceded the 9/11 events.  Only after the 1998 embassy bombings did the U.S. undertake a policy of retaliation, including bombing of Afghanistan and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant to get Bin Laden and other supporters of the Taliban. Still, the Bush administration started payments in April 2001 on $46 million to Afghanistan under the War on Drugs.

 

Saudi Arabia

 

The allegiance of many in the region to bin Laden was crystallized when he called for the removal of U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. He declared that Saudi Arabia, the birth and death place of  the Prophet Mohammed, was being desecrated and used as a puppet of the U.S., just as Afghanistan had been a puppet regime of the Soviet Union.

 

Saudi Arabia, one of the U.S.’s strongest allies in the region, is a fundamentalist, repressive regime, at least as repressive as Iraq (and far less generous to its people with oil money proceeds). Saudi Arabia is dominated by Sunni fundamentalists, with factions of its royal family loyal to the Taliban. The wealth of the nation is spent on palaces of luxury for the small number of families that control the country.

 

Saudi Arabia has 1/4 of the world’s known oil reserves. The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia  was forged in 1945, when President Franklin Delano.Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, the founder of the modern Saudi regime. FDR made a bargain with Ibn Saud: if the King would guarantee unlimited access to Saudi oil, the U.S. would protect the Saudi Royal family against its external and internal enemies. The U.S. relied initially on Britain for this assistance, but since 1972, U.S. has had a continuous policy of protecting the Saudi regime. In fact, it was the fear that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia that prompted the Gulf War, not the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. presence in the Gulf is intended to prevent any attack on Saudi Arabia, and in turn, Saudi Arabia serves as a client state of the U.S. Its oil money is placed in U.S. and British banks.

 

U.S. military forces stationed the holy land of Islam seems an affront to many Saudis.  In 1990, Bin Laden asked King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to fight Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Fahd instead allowed the U.S. to manage the war, then allowed U.S. to station troops there permanently. Bin Laden declared that the U.S. was occupying Saudi Arabia, thereby attracting many Saudis to his cause.

 

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic regime, with no freedom of the press, no political parties. Dissenters are arrested and jailed or executed (or exiled if from a wealthy family like bin Laden). The wealth of the nation is spent on palaces and luxury for the families in control of the nation, while it has no plans for a future without oil for the rest of its citizens (a misnomer, since they have no citizen rights). It allows no dissent, suppressing protest with an the Saudi Arabian National Guard. An internal security force, SANG is almost entirely armed, trained by the United States, largely through a network of military contractors.  In 1981, freedom fighters in the Saudi regime rose up, staged a revolt. SANG crushed it. Ronald Reagan declared “I will not permit [Saudi Arabia] to be an Iran.”  In other words, the U.S. would not allow dissent to flourish in a client state.

 

The CIA and Pentagon’s own planning document shows the US is planning for future wars in Saudi Arabia (it is in the top 3 on the list of potential wars) Here is another effect of blowback: when populace rises up against dictatorship and blames U.S. for its repression. Yet currently U.S. sells more arms to Saudi Arabia than to any other single nation. The arms we provide now might be used in future wars against us. This relationship is never questioned in Congress, because of the power of the Military Industrial Complex. Thus oil money finances U.S. military industrial complex.

 

Pakistan

U.S. policy for 50 years has been to cultivate links between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, rather than encourage Pakistan to make peace with neighboring India, its enemy for 50 years. From 1979-1988, the U.S. found Pakistan quite useful for its proxy war in Afghanistan. Carter administration made deals with and funded General Zia, a dictator, who had ambitions to dominate the region, and who used his power to suppress the influence of Sufi mysticism, an anti-fundamentalist doctrine with hundreds of years of history in the region.

 

The CIA  was well aware of, but turned a blind eye to, the sale of heroin to finance Pakistan’s contribution to the war. The number of heroin addicts increased from 130 in 1977 to several million by 2000.  The Pakistan-Afghani drug trade accounts for 60 percent of the U.S. heroin trade.

 

The CIA funded and supported the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence service) method of producing fanatical warriors for the Afghan front.  2500 religious boarding schools (madrassas) taught a distorted Islamic doctrine and the use of sophisticated weapons and the making and planting of bombs. From this base, the ISI and CIA selected the most promising students who were sent for more specialized training at secret army camps. This is the origin of the Taliban, which has had influence in Pakistan since this period. After the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Pakistani government, now under Prime Minister Bhutto, unleashed the Taliban onto Afghanistan, in part in order to rid Pakistan of its influence. Backed by Pakistani Army commando units, the Taliban took control within 2 years. Sectors of the Pakistani army and ISI are loyal to the Taliban. Other wings of the Pakistani army have created extreme Sunni fundamentalist battalions. There are no constitutional rights for women. There were more than 1000 “honor” killings of women in 2000.

 

Pakistan has nuclear arms. The U.S. refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty encourages Pakistan and India to refuse to sign the pact as well.  Now the U.S. is seeking to enlist the support of Pakistan, an admitted terrorist enclave, in order to fight the Taliban. The U.S. will change its resolutions and doctrines that have defined Pakistan as a rogue state for its own immediate purposes, but such a policy is fraught with folly, as the history above amply illustrates.

 

Beyond the issues of terrorism lies the issue of oil. The U.S. has counted on the support of Pakistan and Turkey in its plan for building pipelines by U.S. oil companies wanting access to oil in the former Soviet Union central Asia republics.

  

 

Israel/Palestinians

The U.S. is the arms supplier for Israel, and these arms have kept the Palestinian population in check, resulting in 725  deaths, mostly Palestinian,  in the past year alone.

 

Israel was founded in 1948, the fulfillment of the Zionist movement after the devastation of WWII. The original 1947 partition plan suggested that the territory be divided in half, one half for Palestine, one half for Israel. But through terrorist strategies, (led by Menachim Begin), Israel gained 78 percent of the area. The state of Israel was created by displacing the Palestinian Arab population, which was also struggling to establish a state (Palestine). Palestinians became refugees, either forcibly expelled or leaving to avoid the fighting (terrorism!). In 1967, Israel invaded and seized the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the rest of the original partition area. The recent conflict is over the efforts to establish Israeli settlements in these occupied territories, in violation of Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions. Most Arabs decry U.S. military assistance to Israel’s war against the Palestinians, and support the Palestinian quest for their own state. The U.S. has played a large role in the refusal of Israel to compromise on the issue.

 

Is it foolhardy to suggest that the U.S. should uphold the values of democracy and freedom?  Anything less certainly compromises the U.S.’s claims to moral and political superiority. Anything less will make us more susceptible to violence in our “homeland”. In addition, if we do not address the world’s increasing inequality of wealth, the U.S. will continue to be vulnerable to terrorists. It is true that Osama bin Laden is wealthy. But the turn toward fundamentalism and terrorism comes from those who find the West’s claimed policy of democracy and freedom shallow and hypocritical. The boys who have been recruited to the madrassas and other religious schools in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are those whose have no other means of sustenance and education.

 

The control of oil remains the center of U.S. security policy in the region, and, indeed, the immediate reason for bin Laden's following is the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War. This stationing involves more than access to oil, it involves troops to protect U.S. corporations interests in the region, including Dick Cheney’s former employer Halliburton.

 

Most highly recommended sources for evidence of the above: www.fpif.org,  Ahmed Rashid, Taliban,  Michael Klare, Resource Wars, Alexander Cockburn, Whiteout, www.gwu.edu/nsa,