Zojuist las ik een blog op Russia Insider.
Geschreven door 'Schildpad', een oud Nato medewerker.
De schrijver heeft een hekel aan het hypocriete media-theater dat volgt op elke aanslag.
En hij signaleert dat elke serieuze discussie ontbreekt: waar komt ISIS vandaan?
JV: Tot zover volledig met hem eens.
Dan toont hij twee teksten.
De eerste zegt: "Al onze pogingen om het Midden Oosten beter te maken zijn mislukt. Misschien hebben we het zelfs wel erger gemaakt. "
Het tweede citaat zegt: "We hebben de Islam zodanig gestuurd dat er een strijdlustige groep werd gekweekt die we voor ons konden laten vechten in Afghanistan, tegen onze vijand, de Russen. Op dezelfde manier kunnen we door gaan om dat wat er nog over is van Rusland kapot te maken, en op dezelfde manier kunnen we ook China gaan dwarsbomen."
Het pikante is: beide teksten zijn van oud CIA man Graham Fuller. De tweede tekst dateert uit 1985.
JV: ben het met Schildpad eens: pikant.
Goed om te lezen dat Fuller toegeeft dat elke bemoeienis van de VS in het Midden Oosten de zaak alleen maar erger heeft gemaakt.
En vooral goed om bevestigd te zien hoe de VS al in de jaren 80 wisten dat ze moslims zouden gaan radicaliseren ( in de woorden van Fuller: 'The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam') en dan gebruiken in hun strijd. Om moslim-extremisten het werk te laten doen dat je eigenlijk door Amerikanen zou moeten laten doen, maar wat uiteraard te riskant zou zijn.
Tenslotte schrijft 'Schildpad":
Ik ben blij dat ook Graham Fuller nu begrijpt dat je wel moslims kan radicaliseren, maar dat die mannen na gedane arbeid niet weer brave huisvaders worden. Die beweging kan blijven bestaan en zich tegen je keren.
Putin, die precies hetzelfde zei, wordt ook nog geciteerd.
Hier verschil ik van 'Schildpad'.
Wat ISIS doet is niet een ontspoorde, uit de hand gelopen actie.
Isis voert nog steeds de agenda uit van Westerse Machten. Misschien niet die van Obama, Brzezinski of Graham Fuller, maar wèl die van Netanyahu, Richard Perle, en alle andere Necocons en Liberal Hawks (de democraten die oorlog propageren).
Officieel bestrijdt de VS al een jaar lang ISIS. Maar in de praktijk laat men ISIS gedijen, laat men ze hun werk doen.
De stroming van Neocons is in dit geval machtiger dan Obama c.s.
Een actueel voorbeeld hiervan is het feit dat ISIS een jaar lang 1000 tankwagens op de weg had om olie uit Syrië naar Turkije te rijden.
Van elke tegenstander van de VS worden de banktegoeden geblokkeerd, maar ISIS ( die officieel door de VS wordt bestreden) kan ongehinderd met 1000 vrachtwagens zijn olie vervoeren.
Pas enkele dagen geleden heeft Putin dit aspect besproken, op de G20, en binnen 24 uur had de VS een aantal vrachtwagens gebombardeerd.
Er is maar één conclusie mogelijk: ISIS werkte al die tijd in het belang van de joodse agenda. ISIS vervulde twee belangrijke taken:
1. Moslimlanden vernietigen. ( Buurlanden van Israel.)
2. Het imago van de islam zeer zwart maken. (Daarvoor dienen vooral de aanslagen in het Westen.)
---------------------
Lang geleden kende ik de site 'History Commons', maar ik was die vergeten.
Er staan oude, oorspronkelijke documenten op de site, en die worden ook nog aan elkaar gerelateerd, meen ik.
In het Russia Insider artikel van Schildpad wordt naar Histopry Commons gelinkt.
Om het niet kwijt te raken zal ik dat artikel hieronder integraal 'plakken'.
Daar weer onder het artikel van Schildpad.
-------------
LINK.
Context of 'September 1999: CIA Analyst Suggests US Use Muslims to Further US Interests in Central Asia'
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the eventSeptember 1999: CIA Analyst Suggests US Use Muslims to Further US Interests in Central Asia. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
Following a March 1985 directive signed by President Reagan that sharply escalates US covert action in Afghanistan, the Pakistani ISI begins training Afghans to launch strikes directly into Soviet territory. Apparently the idea originated with CIA Director William Casey who first proposed harassing Soviet territory in 1984 (see October 1984). According to Graham Fuller, a senior US intelligence official, most top US officials consider such military raids “an incredible escalation” and fear a large-scale Soviet response if they are carried out. The Reagan administration decides not to give Pakistan detailed satellite photographs of military targets inside the Soviet Union. [WASHINGTON POST, 7/19/1992] Mohammad Yousaf, a high-ranking ISI officer, will later claim that the training actually began in 1984. “During this period we were specifically to train and dispatch hundreds of mujaheddin up to 25 kilometers deep inside the Soviet Union. They were probably the most secret and sensitive operations of the war.” He notes that, “By 1985, it became obvious that the United States had got cold feet. Somebody at the top in the American administration was getting frightened.” But, he claims, “the CIA, and others, gave us every encouragement unofficially to take the war into the Soviet Union.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 286-287]Casey will approve of such attacks and the first attack inside the Soviet Union will take place in 1985 (see 1985-1987).
Graham Fuller. [Source: Ohio University]The US tilts ever more sharply towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, even though the Reagan administration continues to maintain a posture of overt neutrality in the conflict. The administration has provided covert military aid for both sides in the struggle (see 1981 and October 1983), and has been divided over which regime to support (see January 14, 1984). It is already involved in “Operation Staunch,” a program designed by Secretary of State George Shultz to stem the flow of weapons to Iran. Now, some officials are arguing that it is time to reverse that course. Graham Fuller, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Middle East, writes two controversial secret memos advocating that the administration begin providing support for Iran against Iraq. Fuller is presenting a position long held by national security director Robert McFarlane and two of McFarlane’s aides, Oliver North and Howard Teicher. This pro-Iran group has recently been joined by CIA director William Casey. Both McFarlane and Casey are supportive of Fuller’s memo. Fuller writes in a May 17 memo, “Our tilt to Iraq was timely when Iraq was against the ropes and the Islamic revolution was on a roll. The time may now have to come to tilt back.” Fuller argues that the US should once again authorize Israel to ship US arms to Iran. Ironically, this is the mirror image of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s argument in favor of supporting Iraq: the US must counter one covert policy with another (see Early 1982). The pro-Iranian coalition within the administration gives scant consideration to the hostage-taking of seven Americans by Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi’ite militant group with strong ties to Iran’s theocratic regime. On May 20, Fuller circulates a second memo, called a “Special National Intelligence Estimate” (SNIE), that is only read by a handful of senior White House officials (Ronald Reagan is one of the recipients; George Bush is not). Fuller’s memo is written almost entirely for Reagan’s benefit, and in its arguments, becomes a basis for renewed arms sales to Iran and the resulting Iran-Contra scandal. Fuller evokes one of Reagan’s favorite themes, the trouncing of the Soviet Union in the global arena: “We know that the USSR views Iran as ‘the prize’ in the Gulf. Moscow will improve relations when and where it can… until it gains major influence in that state. The disturbing possibility is that the USSR is far more likely than the US to be first in finding opportunities to improve its ties to Iran.” Interestingly, in 1991, during Robert Gates’s Senate hearings on becoming the director of the CIA, it is learned that Fuller’s memo contradicts the views of career Soviet analysts at the agency, who believe that the Soviet Union has no real hope of making inroads into the Iranian regime. The USSR is the chief arms supplier for Iraq, Iran’s bitter enemy and current opponent in a long and bloody war. Iran is arming the Afghan mujaheddin, the Islamist resistance fighters viewed as a threat by Saddam Hussein. Several CIA analysts will later testify that they believe Fuller deliberately slanted his memo for political reasons. In 1992, Fuller himself will admit that he was wrong, but will deny any politicization. Regardless, Fuller’s memo becomes a critical document shaping the Reagan policy to arm Iran. It is not clear whether Vice President Bush ever saw the memo, but whether he did or not, beginning in 1985 he takes part in numerous White House meetings where the arming of Iran is discussed. If he has objections to the policy, he never voices them. [TIME, 11/17/1986; NEW YORKER, 11/2/1992]
Entity Tags: Ronald Reagan, Saddam Hussein, William Casey, Robert M. Gates, Oliver North, Reagan administration, Robert C. McFarlane, George Herbert Walker Bush,Graham Fuller, Central Intelligence Agency, Howard Teicher, Caspar Weinberger,Hezbollah, George Shultz
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Iran-Contra Affair
Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence, advocates using Muslim forces to further US interests in Central Asia. He states, “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against [the Russians]. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.” Later in 1999, investigative journalist Richard Labeviere suggests that Fuller is revealing actual US foreign policy in Central Asia and comments, “the convergence of strategic and economic interests between the American government and Sunni Islam is doing just fine….” [LABEVIERE, 1999, PP. 5-6]
Entity Tags: Richard Labeviere, Graham Fuller
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
--------------------
LINK: Russia Insider artikel.
Bigger Than Big, Maybe Even Huger Than Huge
Almost like Brzezinski saying he got it wrong
JV: Uit de kop die Schildpad er boven plaatst blijkt dat hij maar een beperkt begrip heeft van de zaak. Als enkele mensen ( Brzezinski, Schildpad) vinden dat ze toen foutief gehandeld hebben, en dat toegeven, dan is dat leuk, maar geen 'Enorm nieuws'.
Waar het om gaat is dit: de mensen die de werkelijke macht hebben vinden helemaal niet dat in het Midden Oosten fijne en goed lopende democratiën moeten komen. Ze vinden dat die landen kapot moeten, en daarvoor gebruiken ze ISIS. Het is duidelijk dat Schildpad dit niet begrijpt. Hij denkt dat de ingrepen van de VS in het MO mislukt zijn. Maar dat zijn ze juist niet. Het doel van die ingrepen was precies dàt wat er nu is uitgerold: vernietiging.
When I heard of the Paris atrocities I thought: Oh no, here we go again. Fake sincerity, prayers “going out”, “attack on values”, “stand together”, flag overlays on Facebook, mounds of flowers, op-ed writers flogging their dead horses, solemn parade with linked arms (but will they invite Poroshenko this time?), T shirt slogans and all the rest of the sentimental bogosity. What there would not be is any consideration or discussion of Wahhabism, the US causative element, NATO and its activity in the home countries of refugees, “moderate rebels” or anything actually challenging. Just another wallow in false emotion and cheap threats. And, oh yes, some bombing. Always some bombing.
Never would there be any actual thought about causes and effects, how these things came to be and certainly not even the tiniest admission that we – we the exceptionals – just might have a responsibility. Nor would we hear about all the other atrocities in places that don't get the full soppy treatment. Especially not Syria which has had four years in which every day is a Paris. And certainly not any thought that the explosives and weapons used in Paris might just have been supplied… by Paris.
Well, perhaps I'm wrong. And very glad to be too.
I reach this view with much mixed feeling. Over the years I have grown increasingly convinced that western military interventions and wars to “fix” the Middle East have not only failed, but have vastly exacerbated nearly all regional situations. Washington has at the end of the day, in effect, “lost” every one of its recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere. The West has been as much the problem as the solution.
The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against [the Russians]. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.
Different guys, right? Nope. Same guy, different times.
The author is Graham Fuller. Here's his bio on his website, and here's whatWikipedia says. Details are sparse – of course – but he is widely regarded as one of the key people in the US support of the mujaheddin in the Afghanistan-Soviet war.
In other words, Fuller was one of the architects of the US policy to use jihadists in one part of the world expecting to put them back in the box afterwards. (The arrogance of the hyperpower: we're the actors, you're the puppets). Now he realizes they're not puppets and they didn't quietly go back in the box when the hyperpower was finished using them. Now he says:
The elimination of ISIS requires every significant stake-holder to be present: UN, US, EU, Canada, Russia, Iran, Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, Egypt and others. China, aspiring to a major world role, cannot sit this one out either. This convocation requires real heft and clout to impose some rough plan of action. Above all, the UN must head up future operations involving the indispensable future ground operations. If ever an neutral face was essential, this is it.
Which is exactly what Putin is calling for.
Speaking of Putin, I guess Fuller now agrees that “It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.” And “So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here?”
So, maybe the Paris atrocity will lead to some clear thinking. And, as there can't be any real action without clear thinking…
But Fuller's only one man, plenty more have to now come to the same understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment