Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to DexterX,
The Obama administration is more flexible in pursuing goals than previous administrations..
flexible and fortunate. He goes into the meeting with Netanyahu having gotten rid of one of Israel's most notorious enemies, having an arab country celebrate US military intervention on the side of democracy as well as playing a subtle hand in the transformation of Egypt. And with other authoritarian regimes such as Syria under threat I think no other US president has been in such a position of asking, now Mr Netanyahu, what can you do for me.
-
It seems you are pretty much out on your own there.
Well no, I've source material from credible journalists who state that the US did not fund bin Laden, that he was funded quite seperately by the Saudi govt and by funds raised within the Muslim world.
I'll stick with Coll. I'll stick with Jason Burke who continues to write well observed and informed pieces for The Guardian. Both those people travelled extensively in the region and are not uncritical of the US.
You may choose other sources such as the Greenleft but could you please at least have the decency to recognise that other people may have different views to yours that actually are based on credible sources.
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to DexterX,
The mission to kill OBL can be seen as part of a wider foreign policy initiative, that if the US is going to again attempt to broker a peace in the Middle East they also have to have the support at home for a perceived “massive” change in foreign policy direction, and perhaps getting OBL out of the way in the mind of the American people is part of allowing the shift to occur.
I take it you're talking about Israel. Most likely Obama had a plan but he didn't foresee the Arab Spring which really does change things as much if not more than getting rid of Osama and Saddam. And getting rid of Osama had been on the agenda since Bush.
So it's going to be I think about how Team Obama rethinks things now. They're still going to be bogged down getting rid of Qaddafi but after that then yes, putting pressure on Israel will look a lot easier. But they never anticipated the Arab Spring. That was a bit of luck. Obama only has to deal with the clamour of "bomb the arab tyrant" rather than "stop bombing the arab tyrant".
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Simon Grigg,
Norm Dixon in that Greenleft piece continually fails to understand the distinction between the Afghan Mujaheddin and the foreign Mujaheddin.
I think I’ll stick with Steve Coll and Jason Burke.
We can probably continue to trade quotes without coming to any agreement but I still find the sources I’ve cited credible and as far as I can tell no US funding, resources went to bin Laden.
Some small amounts might have slipped through to some of the foreign fighters, not necessarily bin Laden, but only unintentionally and of little importance as Burke suggests. But the vast bulk of US funds went via the ISI to the Afghans whereas the Arab fighters were funded from Muslim sources.
It’s hardly glowing praise for the US after all as I think you pointed out amongst the Afghan fighters the US funded was Hekmatyar, but they did not fund bin Laden. It’s in a sense a small point as Hekmatyar was bad enough but in terms of understanding bin Laden it’s a point worth making.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Simon Grigg,
MAK maintained a close liaison with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency through which the CIA and the Al Mukhabarat Al A’amah funneled money to Afghan Mujaheddin. The MAK paid the airfare for new recruits to be flown into the Afghan region for training.
emphasis added. Yes the CIA funded the Afghan Mujaheddin via the ISI. That’s been no secret.
The foreign Mujaheddin, however, were funded via Saudi and via popular fund raising by the MAK. Bin Laden did not get resources from the US. He says that, Coll and Burke say that.
The full wiki quote is:
During the Soviet-Afghanistan war, MAK played a minimal role, training a small group of 100 mujahidin for the war and dispersing approximately $2 million in donations from Muslims sourced via a network of global offices in Arabic and Western countries, allegedly including approximately thirty in the United States. MAK maintained a close liaison with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency through which the CIA and the Al Mukhabarat Al A’amah funneled money to Afghan Mujaheddin. The MAK paid the airfare for new recruits to be flown into the Afghan region for training.[1]
emphasis added, Popular fund raising.
and from the al-Qaeda entry:
At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations, particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat,[59] whose funds came from some of the $600 million a year donated to the jihad by the Saudi Arabia government and individual Muslims—particularly independent Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden.
They made sure the money came from Muslim sources which fits with bin Laden's overall world view.
-
Thanks for the attempt to continually insert a straw man, Neil.
it’s not a straw man, I was responding to this statement regarding bin Laden up thread:
after all he was Reagan’s golden boy fighting the russians in Afghanistan, funded by the US
As I said that’s a myth, I’ve provided credible evidence to support that from credible sources which includes Steve Coll:
Wheaton, Md.: There have been accusations from the left that have directly accused the CIA of funding and training bin Laden. Is there any truth to this ?
Steve Coll: I did not discover any evidence of direct contact between CIA officers and bin Laden during the 1980s, when they were working more or less in common cause against the Soviets. CIA officials, including Tenet, have denied under oath that such contact took place. The CIA was certainly aware of bin Laden’s activities, beginning in the mid- to late-1980s, and they generally looked favorably on what he was doing at that time. But bin Laden’s direct contacts were with Saudi intelligence and to some extent Pakistani intelligence, not with the Americans. There’s a lot more detail about this in the book than I have space for here.
I have read Ghost Wars and I do recall Coll saying the Saudi’s funded bin Laden without the CIA knowing.
I’m always impressed with the way you have access to information that no-one else has.
I think most people are aware of what bin Laden thought of westerners, I make no claims to privileged information.
-
I love the depth of evidence that supports that detail in that article, Neil – none.
I'm not sure on what basis you doubt Jason Burke's credibility when it comes to this topic, from his wiki:
In 2003, Burke authored Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, which was later updated and republished as Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. Noam Chomsky described it as the "best book there is" on the Al-Qaeda.[4] In 2006, he authored On the Road to Kandahar: Travels through Conflict in the Islamic World.
So when he says:
Though barely noticed by western security services while he supported Afghan mujahideen in their struggle against the Soviets from bases in Afghanistan in the 1980s, reports that Bin Laden received cash from the CIA are false: the Saudi began to concern American intelligence agencies from the early 1990s.
i'm inclined to pay attention. As well as to:
CIA had no direct dealings with him in 80s, had barely heard of him, dealt just with pakistanis who dealt with the Afghans not the international brigade (whose military contribution was negligible anyway). how do i know this? lots and lots of footwork in Peshawar and in the US. Absolutely no one - American officials, Pakistanis, former mujahideen, no one - accepts the whole "blowback" thesis.
-
I wish the Obama administration would just be honest and say that, yes, policies that Obama previously opposed did contribute to the success of this important mission.
Bush gave up on the policy of enhanced interrogation in 2006. It wouldn't make much sense for Obama to praise a policy that Bush eventually came to oppose as well.
-
From that Wired article:
It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name. Once they had that, they unleashed “one of their greatest investigative tools“: the National Security Agency’s surveillance net. The NSA monitored email and phone traffic until they had his full name: Shaikh Abu Ahmed.
electronic surveillance, as in Waihopai. Sounds like Waihopai is part of a system that enabled getting bin Laden without recourse to torture.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Kumara Republic,
And if Saddam and bin Laden were best buddies,
Another myth but that one popular with the Right.
Jason Burke deals with The 10 key myths about Osama bin Laden.
First up, the myth he was funded by the CIA:
He did not receive any direct funding or training from the US during the 1980s. Nor did his followers. The Afghan mujahideen, via Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency, received large amounts of both. Some bled to the Arabs fighting the Soviets but nothing significant.
In understanding bin Laden it's important to recognise he became important because he could resource foreign fighters in Afghanistan independently from what the US and others were doing. His funds came mainly from Saudi Arabia, he wasn't one to play second fiddle to infidels.