To Margaret Hassan, It Matters

#24 Romair

In an interview with the weekly ``Le Nouvel Observateur``, Paris, for January 15-21 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Carter`s National Security adviser, said, and I quote,

``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 breakup 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. `` End of Quote.

One has to find out what caused Sardar Daoud`s fall, what (who) brought the PDPA to power. One has to try and learn how many hats Hafizullah Amin wore, why Nur Mohammad Tarahki was killed, and what lead to Amin`s removal from power.

And over and above and beyond that, one has to find out what, how and why people like Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdur Rab Rasul sayyaf, Yunus Khalis, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi and Gulbuddin Hekmetyar were being accomodated, afforded state patronage and protection and being breastfed by the powers that were in Pakistan [This is a fact often trumpted by the Jama`at Islami, Pakistan], since much before the PDPA take-over in Afghanistan as well as after that take-over.

For the US, what the AlQaeda and the Taliban did was just chickens coming home to roost. It was the US, aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia [the Saudis matched dollar for dollar whtever money the US poured into Afghanistan] Egypt and Iran, that interfered in Afghanistan, provoked the Soviets to move in, and spawned first the AlQaeda and then the Taliban, perhaps the tow most vicious, unscrupulous, and destructive, ideologically motivated organizations known to history.

The US and Pakistan`s various governments cannot be absolved from the unholy mess the world is in today.

#24 Romair

In an interview with the weekly ``Le Nouvel Observateur``, Paris, for January 15-21 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Carter`s National Security adviser, said, and I quote,

``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 breakup 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. `` End of Quote.

One has to find out what caused Sardar Daoud`s fall, what (who) brought the PDPA to power. One has to try and learn how many hats Hafizullah Amin wore, why Nur Mohammad Tarahki was killed, and what lead to Amin`s removal from power.

And over and above and beyond that, one has to find out what, how and why people like Burhanuddin Rabbani, Abdur Rab Rasul sayyaf, Yunus Khalis, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi and Gulbuddin Hekmetyar were being accomodated, afforded state patronage and protection and being breastfed by the powers that were in Pakistan [This is a fact often trumpted by the Jama`at Islami, Pakistan], since much before the PDPA take-over in Afghanistan as well as after that take-over.

For the US, what the AlQaeda and the Taliban did was just chickens coming home to roost. It was the US, aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia [the Saudis matched dollar for dollar whtever money the US poured into Afghanistan] Egypt and Iran, that interfered in Afghanistan, provoked the Soviets to move in, and spawned first the AlQaeda and then the Taliban, perhaps the tow most vicious, unscrupulous, and destructive, ideologically motivated organizations known to history.

The US and Pakistan`s various governments cannot be absolved from the unholy mess the world is in today.

Romair,

My reply was simply drawing the logical conclusion from what you had said; not particularly emotional. If you have the time, you can go back through some of my earlier posts and you will see that I was actually against the US invasion precisely because, to quote Molly Ivans, it would be a ``very easy war and the peace from Hell.``

Here is your own post:
``So how bad really was Iraq, under Saddam Hussain? I know it got really bad, after the first Gulf war. But how bad was it before the Americans started messing around in the area. And before sanctions were imposed on Iraq?``

That is what I was responding to. Just because I am willing to choose the lesser of two evils (keeping Saddam in place to keep the lid on) doesn`t mean that I am willing to say that life under Saddam was great or to deny the fact that Saddam Hussein would rank up there with Pol Pot and Idi Amin among the ``great murderers of the second half of the 20th century.``

There is a fundamental difference between, say, Hussein`s decision to gas the Kurds or kill thousands of Shias, and the US decision to attack a target that kills civilians as ``collateral damage.`` At one level, it really doesn`t matter: dead is dead. At another level, it does matter. Who would you rather have ruling you? Someone who deliberately decides to kill hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians in order to stay in power? Or someone who realizes that civilian casualties are an inevitable side effect of military action and tries (however diligently) to minimize these casualties?

OR are you seriously going to argue that Rumsfeld and Co deliberately say, ``Naah. Lets go with the option that kills more ragheads.`` I can easily believe that they will go with the option that gives lower US casualties (at the expense of more dead Iraqis, perhaps) but not that they will try to maximise civilian casualties. Are you now going to argue that Saddam and Co sat down and said, `` We need a massive show of force BUT figure out the minimum number of casualties needed to cow the Kurds.``

Of course there have been substantial civilian casualties BUT the US at least pays some attention to minimizing them. Some years back, one of the PBS shows had on it a retired Russian KGB major who had spent a few years in Afghanistan with the Spetsnaz and he was talking about military operations in Afghanistan. At the time the US was saying there had been about 500 civilian casualties. After discussing the military operations and what the terrain was like, he said that the 500 casualties claim was clearly wrong. He guessed it would be closer to 2-3 thousand casualties. He then said that if we (the Russians) had launched the same type of campaign, there would have been 20-30 thousand civilian casualties. Furthermore, the US was deliberately scrapping some missions that would have resulted in very high civilian casualties. The Russians would never have done that.

See, sometimes it does make a difference who is making the decisions.

Beena

When I wrote that Afghanistan and Iraq should not be mentioned in the same breath, I was, sub-consciously subscribing to a supposedly ethical framework that seemed to be operative internationally prior to the Bush-Blair Saddamphobia.

While that interact has been posted, I have been giving thought to what I said. But before I go into what dawned upon me, a few words about:

[but to me, the connection is that in both countries, US bombings have caused horrific civilian casualties and breakdowns in infrastructure. These in turn have only enraged more people, turned increasing numbers against `the West`, and enabled them to take advantage of the prevailing lawlessness - and it is the ordinary Iraqis, and people like Margaret Hassan who are paying the price]

The Margaret Hassans of this world, of our day and age are, perhaps [and very sadly so], destined to pay the price for the chicanery, ruthlessness and brigandage of the likes of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush et al.

Now, about collateral damage. The destruction of infrastructure, the civilian casualties, the dislocation and tribulation caused to civilian populations who are absolutely innocent of any role in the creation of such conditions that lead to the military actions which cause such collateral damage.

Has there been any war in the history of mankind where collateral damage has not occurred? Just in the past hundred years, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the civil war in the then Congo, the Suez and the two Egypt Israel Wars, the wars over Kashmir, the Falklands war, the Iran-Iraq war, the so-called Soviet occupation [they were invited in to help fight a metastasized insurgency by a sitting Afghan government] and the so-called Afghan jihad, The Gulf War 1, the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan, has any one of them been devoid of collateral damage?

Mind you, I’m not condoning wars. I abhor them. But where there will be war, there will be collateral damage. To avoid one, you’ll have to avoid the other, to obviate one you’ll have to obviate the other.

There could, perhaps, have been better ways to deal with the intransigence of the Taliban regime over the handing over of OBL. But now, we are abdicating the realm of history and entering the realm of prophecy . . .

Now, what exactly is that ephemera we call ``International Law?`` Is the charter of the UN and the various resolutions, treaties, protocols and agreements enacted under the charter any good?

Does the world community have any moral locus standi to enforce its consensual will upon any nation/state? If it does, would it be ethical for the world community to employ force to enforce such consensual will?

Is the world community in effect agreed upon on certain basic principles regarding the ordering and governance of society? If it is, how come, such patently non-representative, and popularly abhorred regimes such as that of Raza Shah Pehlavi in Iran, that of Zia ul Haq in Pakistan, of the Taliban in Afghanistan, of Saddam in Iraq were tolerated for so long?

Or is it that that the world community, collectively, is at least as hypocritical, devious and focused upon selfish interests as we all individually are in this 21st century.

As often, and always painfully so for me, its a question of answers.


Siddiqua Haqnawaa

dost-mittar #13: ``Romair, I agree with most of what you said except the last paragraph. As I have said before, I am now not in favour of the yankees leaving iraq at this time. As Powel, said the rule of army engagement is ``you break it, you fix it``. So, let the americans pay the price for fixing it.``

DM, Iraq is currently in the same situation as Afghanistan was, after the USSR invasion. Both invasions were carried out, according to the invading countries, to help the locals. This is the easiest way to justify an invasion. Doesn`t matter if the locals asked for the help or not. They need to be, ``helped.``

The USSR had far more staying power in Afghanistan, as a society, than the Americans do in Iraq. Primarily because it was geographically closer and because the USSR was a dictatorship, hence the Kremlin did not have to worry about opinion polls. But eventually it got kicked out, due to the resistance. The same thing is happening to the USA. But a lot quicker.

This has put Iraq in the Afghanistan situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don`t. If the Americans stay, Iraq is screwed, because there will be continued violence, and there is absolutely nothing the Americans can do to stop it. There main aim being to minimize their casualities. In addition, Americans will end up killing more and more Iraqis, thereby making the resistance stronger.

If the Americans leave, the post-USSR phase of Afghanistan could occur, i.e. infighting, with factions supported by neighboring countries, destroying Iraq.

When superpowers invade third-world countries, they do it for their own interests. If they realize their interests have become unachievable, they tend to leave and cut their losses. ``Fixing`` the invaded country is low on their list. USSR never, ``fixed`` Afghanistan. I think the only people who may be able to, ``fix`` Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. So handing it over to them quickly is a less dangerous option than the USA just staying there, forever. What will the USA accomplish in the future that it hasn`t been accomplish yet.

Iraq should never have been sanctioned in the 90s. Its society should have been allowed to evolve. And eventually the Iraqis would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves. No dictator can occupy a country forever. Sooner or later, all have fallen.

Now Iraq is a gigantic mess, where even human rights organizations cannot operate freely. And I am getting convinced, that Iraq was better off under Saddam`s rule (specifically in the pre Gulf War 1 days), regardless of how evil it may have been, than it is today under Bush.

It`s kind of like saying that the Pakistan police is corrupt. Which it is. But Pakistani society is still better off with a corrupt police force, than in a situation where the police force is completely removed and no one is there to replace it. The first option is controlled mayhem. The second option is complete mayhem.Iraq has gone from controlled mayhem, under Saddam, to complete mayhem, under Bush.

Regardless of how, ``evil`` and, ``corrupt`` Afghanistan`s pre-USSR invasion rulers and king(s) may have been, Afghanistan was still better of in 1970 than it is in 2004......

Fuzair #18: You have posted an emotional reply, without providing any facts.

I am only trying to deduce the lesser of two evils, i.e. Was Saddam`s rule less or more evil than the American rule? Are the people of Iraq less worse off under the USA or were they less worse off under Saddam?

I have used two references: the first is the migration trends of fellow Pakistanis. This is something I saw first hand. The second is the ability of human rights organizations to operate in Iraq. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing except emotional references to Hitler and Stalin. Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam`s rule was equivalent to Hitler`s? The American media seems to have really gotten to you. They can make anything look like something completely different.This is what happens when one is emotionally attached to one group in a conflict. You are convinced that USA is better for Iraq than anything else that was there before. Hence everything else is more evil.

What exactly was the picture of Iraq under Saddam? How many people was he killing? Maybe he was killing 1,000 people a year. Quite bad and evil. But still less evil than killing 15,000 in one year. Unless, of course, one believes the, ``collateral damage`` argument completely (Pakistan and India fought three wars, in which neither country had air superiority, yet the collateral damage in all three of these wars, was probably less than one thousand. Yet Americans with all their laser-guided weaponry and 100% air superiority have ended up killing close to 15,000 innocents)?

Maybe Shia clerics, like Al-Sadr`s father were killed by Saddam. But Al-Sadr, himself, doesn`t seem too fond of Americans, either. Does he? Have you ever wondered why? Aren`t Americans targeting Al-Sadr with the same or higher ferocity with which Saddam targeted his father? Maybe Al-Sadr hates Americans more than he hated Saddam? Who knows?

Isn`t it a bit odd that all the American reports about Saddam`s evilness seem to be backdated. Where were these reports when he was actually carrying out all these atrocities. Weren`t the Americans hand in hand with him. And what is the exact nature of these atrocities? I certainly don`t have any first-hand information. And to the best of my knowledge, neither do you.

Was Saddam equivalent to Hitler, in that he killed 6 million people. Or was he more equivalent to everyday Middle Eastern dictators like the Turkish govt. which has killed far more Kurds than Saddam ever did? Why the hell isn`t anyone complaining about Turkey? Was the average Iraqi safer walking down the street under the rule of Saddam or today?

One needs to keep things in perspective. I think Saddam was evil. But I think US rule in Iraq has been even more evil. A dead Iraqi is a dead Iraqi. Doesn`t matter if he was killed by Saddam`s bullet or an American missile. As I stated earlier, at least during Saddam`s rule, Pakistanis were lining up to migrate to his country, with complete desires of never returning home. Why aren`t they lining up to go there now, when Bush is running the show?

The ultimate criteria, in my book, of which rule or country is better, is based on migration patterns. Human beings always migrate from a worse place to live to a better place to live, with or without the Saddam`s of the world. And very few people from anywhere in the world are willing to migrate to Iraq now. While there was a long list willing to go there, under Saddam, pre Gulf War 1.

Saddam was evil, based on whatever I have seen. But the question is was he less or more evil for Iraq than Bush? And was he any more evil than some other Middle East dictators, whose countries are being allowed to evolve at their own pace?

Kindly provide some facts on why you feel Iraqis are better of today, under Bush, then they were pre Gulf War 1, under Saddam.

#19...
Please correct
``are again giving a rationalise`` to ``are again trying to rationalise``...

Americans messed up in Iraq, big time. But kindly note that what we now have there working against the Americans is not just ``iraqi -resistance``.

We do not know what Iraqis really want, but just a few days ago 48 Iraqi soldiers were killed in cold blood, shot at close range. There is no regard for Iraqi life in the suicide killings. No infrastructure can be rebuilt because that may `legitimize` Americans. The wishes and interests of the ordinary Iraqis do not matter, since nobody is interested in finding out what they are.

The algebra is simple. Americans went to Iraq because they didn`t like S. Husssain. Islamists have gone there because they don`t like America. Iraqi people are merely figleafs for both.

Beena #17
``merely pointing out that it is US aggression and heavy-handedness that has led to the breakdown of law & order, leading to this kidnapping spree.``

PLEASE!! You are again giving a rationalise why Margaret Hassan was kidnapped!! Why should US aggression result in kidnapping of Margaret? She was an Iraqi for 30 years!! If these kidnappers are so brave, why don`t they kidnap american troops only.... These kidnappers are looking for soft targets and are nothing but crooks..

These actions and reactions between US and terrorists are resulting in loss of life of innocent people. If these kidnappers are really sincere, they (or their sympathizers in USA) can get better results by opting for non-violent means...

This is typical of terrorist `freedom fighters` and their supporters - kill your own people and blame your enemy. This woman worked all her adult life for Iraqis, but her whole lifetime`s committment to Iraq amounted to a great big zero for her kidnappers. And other Iraqis are killed every day in bomb blasts and targetted killings by terrorists claiming to liberate Iraq. Some `liberation` when you claim your superior morality `forces` you to kill your own people in large numbers.

Romair,

How bad was life under Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Duvalier? And a few more that could be named.

Certainly, a tall, blond, blue-eyed Aryan who was not a Communist/Socialist/Jew/Union organizer/homosexual/etc had life OK under Hitler. After all, the inflation rate was reduced, unemployment reduced, the autobahn built, etc, etc.

Of course life was great for the Sunni Iraqis from Tikrit. It really sucked if you were a Kurdish nationalist who thought that speaking/reading/writing Kurdish was prefereable to Arabic. What if you were a Shia cleric whose family was executed by Hussein? Or a girl who Hussein`s sons found attractive?

If you absolutely kept your nose clean and said, ``Saddam is always right. Long live Saddam!`` then the odds were that you would be OK. However, what if you didn`t want to yell that at the top of your lungs. What then?

Romair, sometimes you truly amaze me.

For those who appear to have taken my piece the wrong way - I am not at all trying to justify the plight of Margaret Hassan, merely pointing out that it is US aggression and heavy-handedness that has led to the breakdown of law & order, leading to this kidnapping spree. I don`t believe the kidnappers can escape responsibility for their actions, but those who have attacked Iraq on false pretexes must also shoulder their share of the blame.

Re: Afghanistan - in some ways certainly it is better off, and the situation there is different from Iraq. Perhaps I should not have mentioned them in the same breath, but to me, the connection is that in both countries, US bombings have caused horrific civilian casualties and breakdowns in infrastructure. These in turn have only enraged more people, turned increasing numbers against `the West`, and enabled them to take advantage of the prevailing lawlessness - and it is the ordinary Iraqis, and people like Margaret Hassan who are paying the price.

I stand corrected on Robin Cook - that sentence should have read: ``There is already fierce opposition to this in Britain, including by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, then Cabinet Minister and Leader of the House of Commons, who resigned from the government in protest against Britain’s involvement in what he, along with millions of protestors around the world, saw as an unjustified invasion.``

It is an eye-opening reflection upon our times that the genuine plight of one person (Margaret Hassan) does not prompt an iota of sympathy from the self-appointed guardians of the world, whereas the perceived misdoings of one person (Saddam Hussein) prompted them to invade, occupy, enslave, emaciate and impoverish a whole country and nation.

Expecting George W. Bush and or John Kerry to be able to comprehend such niceties as human rights and such issues as human suffering, is asking too much . . .

On a tangent, I simply cannot fathom it when the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the War against Iraq are mentioned in the same breath.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Beena Sarwar

Robin Cook did not resign as foreign secretary. He had been sacked from that position many years previously.

I take your point about American high handedness causing ``terrorism`` (Note inverted commas)

Would you apply the same interpretaton on the slaughter and blasting of Shias in your country?

Please write an article putting the blame for anti-Shia ``terrorism`` in Pakistan at the door of Shia high handedness and arrogance please. They must be doing something wrong, right?

Lets look at the root cause of ``terrorism`` against Shias. Any ideas?

Iraq has become the battleground for the clash of fundamentalisms. The sufferers are the Iraqi people and some of those who would like to help them.

Romair, I agree with most of what you said except the last paragraph. As I have said before, I am now not in favour of the yankees leaving iraq at this time. As Powel, said the rule of army engagement is ``you break it, you fix it``. So, let the americans pay the price for fixing it.

Finally, I am glad nobody is suggesting the Margaret Hassan`s kidnapping is the work of cia/fbi to defame islamists.