|
Gates: “Who are you gonna believe, me or my memoirs.”
After delivering his prepared remarks Gates fielded questions from his audience, which included dozens of top government officials, mainly from Europe and the United States, as well as military officers, private security specialists, members of Congress and European parliamentarians.
A member of the Russian parliament, leading off the questioning, accused the United States of having created today’s al-Qaida threat through its support in the 1980s for the mujahadeen resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Gates disputed that assertion but said he did regret that the United States abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
“The threat from al-Qaida began with the Soviet invasion of a sovereign state in December 1979, a state that up to that point had not represented a threat to anybody in the world, except to a certain extent its own people because of its weakness and poverty,” Gates said in response to the Russian’s question.
Gates Cautions on NATO’s Survival, AP, Jan Feb 10, 2008
Somehow I remember that different. Wasn’t there a former CIA director who wrote about this? Who claimed that Carter sent big money to the Mujah groups, from which al Qaeda grew, before the Sowjets intervened on the side of the attacked Afghan government?
Indeed:
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.
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
—
The truth is that the United States began a program of covert aid to the Afghan guerrillas six months before the Soviets invaded.
First revealed by former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, the $500 million in nonlethal aid was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were pouring into the puppet regime they had installed in Kabul. Some on the American side were willing–perhaps even eager–to lure the Soviets into a Vietnam-like entanglement. Others viewed the program as a way of destabilizing the puppet government and countering the Soviets, whose undeniable aggression in the area was helping to reheat the cold war to a dangerous boil.
‘Blowback,’ the Prequel, The Nation, Oct 25, 2001
—
Gates even defends Carter’s handling of Afghanistan, reporting that the president and his advisers reacted far earlier than is generally understood, most notably by authorizing covert aid to Afghan insurgents.
Surprises From Gates’s 1996 Memoir, WaPo, Jan 7, 2007
Gates criticized today “the Allies” willingness to engage with the Neo-Zi Wehrmacht.
“Some allies ought not to have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations (sic), thus forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and the dying,” he said. He repeated comments made in Washington last week that NATO risked becoming a “two-tiered alliance” if certain countries, which he did not name, continued to shy away from combat.
Canada goes a step farther, delineating “Alliance Afghanistan”. Read it and weep for ambassador-speak, as millions of helpless Arabs, Persians and Pashtuns are interred:
http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/080122_afghan_report.pdf
The august government panel concludes on pages 32 and 33:
“Some say [classic dismissive phrase] that the financial cost of Canada’s military engagement ($6.1 billion from fiscal years 2000-01 to 2006-07) is excessive, or could be better spent elsewhere— in Afghan reconstruction and development, for instance. [another classic throwaway phrase, e.g. no reconstruction monies]
They argue that the overall Canadian engagement in Afghanistan is misplaced and
has failed to make progress, and that progress is unlikely. They argue that Canada, deliberately or not, has become part of a misdirected U.S. “war on terror,” damaging Canada’s international reputation and endangering Canadian security. [“they argue” classic debate tactic to dismiss viable arguments, by assigning the rubric “they”.]
These arguments raise serious issues, and they require a serious response. [Which is never given!! Priceless!!]
Truth be told, (sic) conditions have changed over the years in Afghanistan, and the
Canadian military mission has changed as a consequence. [Ahhh yes, “change”] The strongest impression formed by The Panel was that the Canadian Forces are doing a highly commendable job in a more violent and hazardous mission than was envisaged (sic) when they were first deployed to Afghanistan. The extent and character of the current Canadian commitment reflect this unpredicted flow of events, and the powerful effect of past decisions. [CLASSIC PABLUM, WHICH “SETS UP” THEIR DELIBERATE MIS-CHARACTERIZATION AND INVERSION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH]
The Panel is convinced that Canadian objectives in Afghanistan are both honourable and achievable. The aim there is not to create some fanciful [classic dismissive put-down] model of prosperous democracy. [THROUGH RECONSTRUCTION PERHAPS???!!! THROUGH BASIC HUMAN SERVICES, HUH, DO YOU THINK!!!!!?????] Canadian objectives are more realistic (sic): to contribute, with others, to a better governed, stable and developing Afghanistan whose government can protect the security of the country and its people.”
How wondrous French Defense Minister Herve Morin’s reply! “The solution is not just a military one. Military action is as a wave lapping at the sand. Our country has a particular message to defend, a more humane vision of international relations, which is respectful of the identities of each and everyone.”
Apparently there’s a darker reading to Morin’s worldview, taken in a larger context:
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1172
“One can even observe an incredible development: a Persian and Shia country [Iran] is aspiring to become the champion of the Arab and Muslim world. Nobody can guarantee anymore that we are safe from a strategic surprise. I feel deeply that considerable sources of destabilization exist. It is our duty, without resigning ourselves to the worst, to prepare ourselves for such possibilities…. To contribute actively to the development of stability and security outside our borders, with two priorities: the fight against terrorism and the guaranteeing of our energy supplies.”
Ahhh, there you go, the Sudatenlandt gambit, old Balkans “Soupy Sales” shuffle, taken right out of the Neo-Zi’s Goebbels playbook, aka … Perpetual Palestine.
And our life savings thrownaway, our children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance of disenfranchisement, paid for it, is paying for it, and will continue to pay for it.
ONE TRILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE NEO-ZI RATHOLE!
Posted by: Wai Lapeng | Feb 10 2008 19:23 utc | 5
|
