Robert Gates’ Islamofascism Connection
by
Michael Gaddy
by Michael Gaddy
DIGG THIS
In a few short
weeks, Americans will have a solid indicator on the actual results
of their November 7th repudiation of the Iraq war through
the voting process. It will be clear whether the wishes of
the American people will be taken seriously by the politicians of
either party, or whether it will be business as usual in Babylon
on the Potomac.
Just exactly
how Senate Democratic members Reid, Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer,
Kerry, Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain, and others
handle the upcoming confirmation hearing of Robert Gates, who as
assistant CIA director in the late 1970’s was responsible for administering
a 500 million dollar dose of growth-hormone to the then fledgling
Militant Muslim movement will be insightful. Gates readily admitted
his support of this effort in his 1996 memoir, From
The Shadows.
Will we finally
hear Washington criticism of the Pakistani Inter-Services-Intelligence
(ISI) operations? ISI has been linked to training and funding of
the perpetrators of 9/11, the London, Madrid, Bali, and Delhi bombers,
and was the alleged conduit for monetary support from Gates and
the CIA to what would become al-Qaeda, even before the Russian invasion
of Afghanistan.
Although a
pretty face can be painted on this intrusion into the affairs of
other nations by claiming it led to the downfall of the Soviet Union
(using the language of the CIA), the "blow-back" from
this event has evolved into an F5 tornado.
That those
in Washington believed, and possibly still believe, giving aid and
support to Militant Muslims was the right thing to do is revealed
in this excerpt from a 1998 interview
of Zbigniew Brezezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National
Security Advisor.
"Question:
The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs
[From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began
to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet
intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser
to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair.
Is that correct?
Brzezinski:
Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the
Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979
that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid
to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very
day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him
that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military
intervention.
Q:
Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked
to provoke it?
B: It isn't
quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly
increased the probability that they would.
Q:
When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that
they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United
States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there
was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what?
That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret
it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote
to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the
USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to
carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that
brought about the demoralization and finally the break-up of the
Soviet empire.
Q:
And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism,
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is
most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse
of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation
of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q:
Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense!
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.
That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational
manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion
of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common
among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism,
Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than
what unites the Christian countries.
Obviously,
the initial funding of Militant Islam by the CIA under the leadership
of Robert Gates, and the idiocy of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq
have united these "stirred up Moslems" into a force that
Bush, Cheney, et al., say requires a never ending pre-emptive wars,
as well as the removal of all of our liberties guaranteed in the
Bill-of-Rights in our Constitution.
The immediate
announcement of Rumsfeld’s departure as Secdef and Gates’ appointment
to succeed him after the Democratic victory was a well-planned event.
Bush wanted to get the Gates confirmation secured in the lame duck
session while the Republicans still controlled the Senate.
During this
confirmation hearing we will see if the politicians have learned
anything from the election of November 7. My guess is there will
be no change; our so-called representatives owe their soul and their
financial futures to the Military/Industrial Complex and care nothing
for the American Citizen. George Wallace was right in 1968 when
he told us there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the
two parties; and Carroll Quigley was right when he said in his book
Tragedy
and Hope,
"The argument
that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies,
one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish
idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead,
the two parties should be almost identical,
so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out'
at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts
in policy.... [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt,
tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible
to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party,
which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new
vigor, approximately the same policies" Carroll Quigley, Tragedy
and Hope: a History of the World in Our Time (New York : MacMillan,
1966), p.1248. (emphasis added)
November
20, 2006
Michael
Gaddy [send him mail], an
Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four
Corners area of the American Southwest.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Michael
Gaddy Archives
|