al Qaeda blowback from Cold War?
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 03-19-2004 - 1:47pm |
Madrid: Victim of US 'blowback'
By Ritt Goldstein
A February 1998 Pentagon report on terrorism warned that: "It is the American character to believe we can solve all problems with our ingenuity and hard work." It then went on to say that no matter what was done, "there would remain a significant portion of terrorist planning, preparation and incidents that would surprise". But the real surprise for many will be how Madrid's tragedy is directly linked to decades of United States foreign policy errors in Afghanistan.
"Blowback" is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) term for the unintended consequences of foreign operations. But US policy expert Chalmers Johnson, author of the much acclaimed Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire, told Asia Times Online that there was more to it. Johnson highlighted that key to the term is an appreciation that the actions undertaken had been "kept secret from the American public", so that when "retaliation came they had no means to put in context or understand it as a cause and effect relationship". And while Spanish voters appreciated the linkage between Spain's support for the Iraq war and the recent devastation, the bombings of March 11 are only the surface of a far deeper problem.
Many of the recent media reports on terrorist action have drawn parallels between assorted Islamic groups and those who had fought in Afghanistan, tending to label those affiliated with these Afghan veterans as al-Qaeda. At present the leading suspect for the train blasts is such a body, the Moroccan group Salafia Jihadi.
According to leading Moroccan terrorism analyst Professor Mohamed Darif, Salafia was effectively spawned soon after veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union returned in the 1980s and 90s. The Salafist movement itself dates to the 19th century, established as a school of Sunni Islam which sought to re-establish the ways of the Islamic forefathers (Salaf), and is best recognized in today's Wahhabi denomination. But during the Afghan-Soviet conflict a fateful split in the movement occurred, spawning what many see as the roots of current concerns, what Darif refers to as the emergence of Jihad Salafism.
As reported in American media on March 23, 2002, the issue is that now America "is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism". It was a matter of US foreign policy that the concept of Jihad was actively encouraged as a tool in the Cold War's Afghan arena.
What both Madrid and September 11, 2001 represent is blowback.
In January of 1998, the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski regarding the origins of the Afghan-Soviet conflict and the role of the mujahideen in it. During the interview Brzezinski - who presided over the beginnings of the conflict - revealed that while history officially recognized CIA aid to the Afghans as beginning subsequent to the country's entrance by Soviet forces, "the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise".
Notably, the Soviets entered Afghanistan on December 24, 1979, to prop up the Marxist government there, insisting they were doing so to combat a clandestine US involvement. They were widely disbelieved. But Brzezinski revealed that "it was 3 July 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul".
When Brzezinski was asked if he regretted the action, he replied: "Regret what … the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
The interviewer then addressed how Afghanistan proceeded to spawn Islamic terrorism, the US having provided arms and training to "future terrorists"; but, Brzezinski dismissed such reasoning, describing today's al-Qaeda and its alleged offshoots as "some stirred-up Muslims".
In perhaps the most revealing exchange, the interviewer questioned: "Some stirred-up Muslims? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today." Brzezinski replied, "Nonsense!"
In contrast, Johnson told Asia Times Online that: "Richard Armitage, Condolleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney ran the biggest clandestine operation we ever carried out anywhere - recruiting, arming and training the mujahideen. And we just walked away and left them to the most devastating civil war, and they realized that they had been used as cannon fodder in a skirmish of the Cold War. They wanted retaliation."
Beyond encouraging Islamic fighters from throughout the world to join the Afghan jihad against the Soviets, the US sought to indoctrinate those of school age with the concept of jihad. American media reported that millions of dollars were spent in providing Afghan schoolchildren with "textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings", doing so as "part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation".
The Washington Post described one passage as glorifying those who "will sacrifice their wealth and life to impose Islamic law on the government". And as these perspectives were disseminated to the worldwide Islamic community with the return of Afghan veterans, the debate in Iraq over Islamic law becomes easier to appreciate.
Following the return of the Afghan-Soviet veterans to their respective homelands, the new so-called Jihad Salafism simply returned with them. While the name of al-Qaeda has been used extensively in describing these individuals and the circles they developed, Morocco's Darif has been quoted as observing that the reality "is more a doctrine, like Marxism, than a single coherent organization".
Emphasizing the point, an Associated Press article reported this week that new al-Qaeda recruits were materializing as a result of the efforts of "radicals who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan". But it then continued, noting the recruitment is "by remote control", saying that al-Qaeda amounts to "separate and loose groups bound only by ideology". According to one expert quoted, "If you believe in their ideas you are one of them." And that is the problem, the idea of jihad which US foreign policy cultivated to combat the Soviet Union is now the idea which is at the basis of the expanding, ongoing blowback.
Prior to the Iraq war, British intelligence warned Prime Minister Tony Blair of a "heightened" threat if the Iraq invasion occurred. Australia was informed by its intelligence similarly, as was the US. But the "war on terror" was nevertheless cited as the basis for the Iraq invasion. And according to former Iraq administrator General Jay Garner, the first priority of the Bush administration was to roll out plans drafted as early as 2001 for Iraq's "privatization".
As Vice President Dick Cheney has foreseen a "war on terror" which will "not end in our lifetime", it appears the administration's conduct may indeed assure this. But as John Pilger observed in 2002, "there is no 'war on terror', just the new Great Game", adding that the 19th century geopolitical struggle for power and wealth hada merely been vastly speeded-up, and become more deadly than ever.

Interesting article! It's common knowledge that the US supported the Afghans (Taliban)
How do you fight an idea? With smart bombs and missles--I think not.
You are right! How can one expect peace, quote "winning hearts & minds", by people with fanatical religious beliefs, language, tribal customs, poor,
War is indeed a misnomer. We will always have criminals and now terrorists. Our attack IMO should be to increase cooperation with other nations and put together a world-wide intelligence network. Then I wonder how is this possible when the intelligence groups within the US can't work together. Sigh--so few people get the point.
War is indeed a misnomer. We will always have criminals and now terrorists. Our attack IMO should be to increase cooperation with other nations and put together a world-wide intelligence network. Then I wonder how is this possible when the intelligence groups within the US can't work together. Sigh--so few people get the point.
Thank you.
ITA!
C