[iwar] [fc:CIA.trains.bin.Laden.-.gets.powers.expanded.to.hunt.him.down.-.trains.new.ones]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-18 08:19:55


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2029-1000826392-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5630 invoked by uid 510); 18 Sep 2001 15:20:24 -0000
Received: from n31.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.81) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 15:20:24 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2029-1000826392-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.220] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Sep 2001 15:19:56 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 15:19:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 86901 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 15:19:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 15:19:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 15:19:55 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id IAA03555 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:19:55 -0700
Message-Id: <200109181519.IAA03555@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:CIA.trains.bin.Laden.-.gets.powers.expanded.to.hunt.him.down.-.trains.new.ones]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Los Angeles Times
September 17, 2001
CIA's Tracks Lead In Disastrous Circle
By Robert Scheer

So, we've come full circle.  The CIA, which originally helped train
Osama bin Laden and many of the other terrorists who have turned against
us, now will have its powers expanded to do more of the same. 

Of course, the CIA did not traffic with Islamic fanatics on its own
initiative but was following a policy proclaimed by President Reagan of
support for "the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters."
There's something absurd in the sentiment of congressional leaders, who
the New York Times reported Sunday "have concluded that American spy
agencies should be allowed to combat terrorism with more aggressive
tactics, including the hiring of unsavory foreign agents." When did the
CIA stop hiring "unsavory" agents? Like Bin Laden, the CIA recruited
"freedom fighters" from throughout the Islamic world to overthrow the
secular government in Kabul that was backed by the Soviets. 

Bin Laden was no minor recruit to the cause but, given his wealthy
father's close ties to the Saudi royal family, was received by the
Afghans and Pakistanis on the highest levels and embraced by them up to
the days preceding the disastrous attack on the U.S. 

Bin Laden turned against the U.S.  as a consequence of the Gulf War,
when the Saudi leadership rejected his advice to rely on native fighters
and instead turned over the country's defense to the U.S.  military,
which overwhelmed that underpopulated desert kingdom with the bravado of
more than half a million troops.  The much-proclaimed success of former
President Bush's Gulf War, despite the enormous civilian "collateral
damage"-a horror never acknowledged in this country-did not topple
Saddam Hussein but left a bitter trail of anti-U.S.  fervor.  When Bin
Laden returned to Afghanistan, he found many willing Muslim recruits. 
Like Bin Laden, those identified as the perpetrators of the recent
debacle were raised in the bosom of indulgent Arab oil states that
financed their education abroad, including years of flight school for at
least one of the Saudi pilots who smashed into the World Trade Center. 
They're far more skilled than the terrorists of the past. 

But it's nonsense to suggest that the CIA has been hamstrung in going
after Bin Laden, when President Clinton specifically empowered it to do
so three years ago.  As Bob Woodward and Vernon Loeb reported in the
Washington Post last week : "The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to
use covert means to disrupt and preempt terrorist operations planned
abroad by Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden under a directive signed by
President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by President Bush this year,
according to government sources." Bin Laden's operation has been under
constant surveillance; Clinton ordered the blasting of his training
camps in response to a previous terrorist attack.  If Bin Laden was
responsible for this most recent attack, it represents nothing less than
a startling failure of U.S.  intelligence.  Ironically, under our new
president, U.S.  policy even had tilted toward the view that we could
work with the Taliban thugs who have harbored Bin Laden, as evidenced
last May when U.S.  drug enforcement officials visited the country and
celebrated that regime's success in limiting opium production. 
"Taliban's Ban on Poppy a Success, U.S.  Aides Say" was the New York
Times headline, with glowing endorsements from U.S.  officials.  The
story reported, "The sudden turnaround by the Taliban, a move that left
international drug experts stunned ...  opens the way for American aid
to the Afghan farmers who have stopped planting poppies.  On [May 17],
Secretary of State Colin L.  Powell announced a $43-million grant to
Afghanistan in additional emergency aid to cope with the effects of a
prolonged drought.  The United States has become the biggest donor to
help Afghanistan in the drought." Powell issued a statement that the
U.S.  would "continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the
Afghans."

This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending.  Call it what
you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United
Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal
that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable. 

From the beginning, over the last 20 years, our entire Afghan policy has
provided a reminder of the dangers of "blowback," a phrase used to
describe the turning of the machinations of U.S.  intelligence agencies
against our own nation.  Yet, in the desperation of the moment, Congress
now wants to empower the CIA to do more of the same. 

Robert Scheer writes a syndicated column. 


------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:45 PDT