Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Brzezinski Terror Doctrine Strikes the Caucasus
Source: Awoken Research Group
URL Source: http://valis.cjb.cc/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=85
Published: Oct 16, 2005
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2005-10-16 14:50:07 by valis
Keywords: Brzezinski, Doctrine, Caucasus
Views: 494

October 13th, 2005 - Kurt Nimmo

In Nalchik, a Caucasus backwater situated in Kabardino-Balkariy, a southern Russia province, “Islamic militants launched a major attack on police and government buildings… turning the city into a war zone wracked by gunfire and explosions. At least 49 people, including 25 militants, were killed… [and] Chechen rebels claimed responsibility for the offensive,” according to the St. Petersburg Times. Last year Islamic “Chechen rebels” attacked police armories and killed nearly a hundred people in the Caucasus republic of Ingushetia and “separatists and extremists” nearly assassinated Murat Zyazikov, the pro-Kremlin president of the region bordering Chechnya.

On the surface, this would appear to be more horrific Islamic violence, hardly uncommon in Russia’s Islamic provinces, yet another incident of jihadist madness. However, when the neocons stake their interest in the world, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, Muslim violence invariably follows.

Consider, for instance, the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), billed as “the only private, non-governmental organization in North America exclusively dedicated to promoting the peaceful resolution of the Russo-Chechen war,” explains the ACPC website. “Chaired by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski [a former CFR board of directors member], former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr. and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, the committee is composed of more than one hundred distinguished [neocon and neolib] Americans representing both major political parties and nearly every walk of life,” including no shortage of Straussians from the American Enterprise Institute, the Freedom House (chaired by the “world war four” proponent and former CIA director, James Woolsey), the neolib Jamestown Foundation, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (a long-time CIA psychological warfare outfit), and the perennial warmongering RAND Corporation (a confluence of Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundation money and conniving globalist agendas).

In other words, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ACPC is no friend to besieged Chechens or the ethnically diverse people of the Caucasus region. ACPC, however, is a friend to multinational corporations hankering to build “a variety of pipelines traversing various countries” in the region, as Brzezinski writes, a project that would “involve some accommodation among the principal neighboring states,” Iran in particular. It should also be noted that Brzezinski was at one time a paid Amoco consultant, “advising the firm on Caspian oil matters,” according to Lenora Foerstel. It is not strictly peace and harmony that piques Brzezinski’s interest. “The Eurasian Balkans hold an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves as well as important minerals, including gold,” notes Foerstel. For Brzezinski, “the Eurasian Balkans” encompasses a huge area between the Eastern shore of the Black Sea to China, which includes the Caspian Sea and its petroleum resources.

Brzezinski’s apparently life-long animosity directed against Russia is no secret and he sketches out his plan to free (or open up for exploitation) “the Eurasian Balkans” in his “geopolitical” treatise, The Grand Chessboard. In the book, Brzezinski portrays Russia and China as adversaries who are likely to get in the way of exploiting the oil and mineral rich region for the sake of western multinationals. “[I]t is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” writes Brzezinski. “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” But for Brzezinski and the oil-hungry neolibs and their neocon kissing cousins, the American people are too wimpish for “global primacy” and the militarization and sacrifice such hegemonic behavior requires:

America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.
Since the “Eurasian Balkans” are “infinitely more important as a potential economic prize,” considering the “enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves… in addition to important minerals, including gold” waiting to be exploited, and democracy “is inimical to imperial mobilization” (as Iraq has sufficiently demonstrated), Brzezinski’s war must be fought on another, somewhat less obvious front—through the increasing application of Islamic terrorism.

Brzezinski is hardly a neophyte when it comes to employing Muslims to do his dirty work. As U.S. National Security Adviser during the Carter administration, Brzezinski was in large part responsible for the “propaganda campaign and… covert action campaign to help the [Afghan] rebels” fight against the Soviets, who entered the country to assist their puppet regime in Kabul in response to “rebel” attacks against the government (see U.S. Memos on Afghanistan: From Brzezinski to President Carter). In fact, Brzezinski stirred up “geopolitical” trouble in Afghanistan well before the Soviet intervention. “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,” Brzezinski bragged to the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur on January 15-21, 1998. “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.” A decision to expand the project followed a meeting of the NSC Special Coordinating Committee on December 17, 1979. As John Prados notes, “the inception of the CIA project in Afghanistan preceded the Soviet intervention, with three motorized and airborne divisions and other units, that came on December 25, 1979.”

“For 17 years, Washington poured $4bn into the pockets of some of the most brutal men on earth—with the overall aim of exhausting and ultimately destroying the Soviet Union in a futile war,” John Pilger writes. “One of them, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord particularly favored by the CIA, received tens of millions of dollars. His speciality was trafficking opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. In 1994…” Brzezinski’s plan to take down the Soviet Union in Afghanistan resulted in the amassing of a large and motley army of Islamic fanatics from various countries.

Pilger continues:

CIA director William Casey had given his backing to a plan put forward by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and MI6, with the SAS training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia [Camp Peary, the CIA’s spy training camp]. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.
Of course, the official history of this massive operation—billed as the CIA’s most successful—contends that Osama bin Laden was incidental, a small and insignificant player at best. “Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden,” explains Phil Gasper, a professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University. “These denials lack credibility. Earlier this year [2001], the trial of defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya disclosed that the CIA shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to bin Laden’s operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this,” as did a report published in the Boston Globe:
Some military analysts and specialists on the weapons trade say the CIA has spent years covering its tracks on its early ties to the Afghan forces…. Despite the ClA’s denials, these experts say it was inevitable that the military training in guerrilla tactics and the vast reservoir of money and arms that the CIA provided in Afghanistan would have ended up helping bin Laden and his forces during the 1980s.
More to the point, as Abdel Monam Saidali, of the al-Aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, notes, Osama bin Laden and the so-called “Afghan Arabs” received “very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA” (See Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998; also see Michel Chossudovsky, Who Is Osama Bin Laden?) “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism—car bombing and so on—so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns… Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate,” Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin, told the British Observer on August 13, 2000 (see Norm Dixon, How the CIA created Osama bin Laden). “In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make ‘the same call again’, even knowing what bin Laden would become,” writes Dixon.

In fact, as the evidence reveals, the U.S. did make “the same call again” and used “al-Qaeda” for various operations in the Balkans and Chechnya (see Marina Domazetovska, Al Qaeda and NATO Join Hands in supporting NLA Terrorists in Macedonia, Aktuel Weekly, Skopje, 3 March 2002). “Mujahideens of all sorts, Jihad fighters, bin Laden’s followers and similar mercenaries of the distorted and abused Islam are not news on the Balkans,” reported Nevenka Mitrevska (Who Imported Hesbolah in Macedonia, Start, volume 113, March 23, 2001. pp. 6-9; see previous link). “They fought in Bosnia, on the side of Alija Izetbegovic’s army, trained in bin Laden’s camps in Tropoja and Bajram Curi in northern Albania and made incursions in Kosovo to help their KLA ‘brothers’ in the fight against ‘infidels’” in Macedonia. “Osama bin Ladens’s terrorist groups most easily encroached on the Balkans through Albania and today they are present in Kosovo and Macedonia,” the former Macedonian interior minister Pavle Trajanov revealed in an interview with A1 Television (again, see previous link).

“Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO,” Isabel Vincent reported for the National Post. “The arrival in the Balkans of the so-called Afghan Arabs, who are from various Middle Eastern states and linked to al-Qaeda, began in 1992 soon after the war in Bosnia. According to Lenard Cohen, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, mujahedeen fighters who travelled to Afghanistan to resist the Soviet occupation in the 1980s later “migrated to Bosnia hoping to assist their Islamic brethren in a struggle against Serbian [and for a time] Croatian forces…. The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia three years ago to unseat Mr. Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA, which had already received ’substantial’ military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say.”

According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress’s Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, “al-Qaeda,” the ISI-CIA-MI6-NATO terrorism contrivance is well-established in Chechnya and “goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war” (Levon Sevunts, Who’s calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999, ibid. Chossudovsky, link above). “Russia’s main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington’s perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin,” notes Chossudovsky.

In Chechnya, “the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” according to Chossudovsky. As Basayev told Mikhail Shevelev of the Moscow Times, he “will not spare anyone and will be ready to cooperate with the [Russian] GRU or the CIA or the devil himself…. Basayev is not a person but a function. If he is killed, his place will be taken by other Chechens or Ingush—it does not matter who. They will be less bright but just as ambitious and therefore even more brutal,” as the horror of the Beslan school hostage crisis on the first of September, 2004, revealed. As Jim Lobe writes, “Moscow’s counterinsurgency efforts should be reassessed in light of alleged ties between Chechen rebels and the Al-Qaeda network,” a connection noted by the Christian Science Monitor when it reported “Ties between Chechen rebels and [Mujihadeen forces] stretch back to the first Chechen war (1994 to 1996)” (Al-Qaeda among the Chechens, Christian Science Monitor, 7 September 2004). “By 1999, when Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev invaded Russian territory in Dagestan—prompting a second war—it became clear that Islamic radicals dominated Chechen rebel groups.”

In the current context, where there is Islamic terrorism, there are shadowy indications of the CIA or affiliated (or possibly competing) intelligence operatives and operations. For instance, On March 23 of this year, “Field commander Rizvan Chitigov [was]… killed in Chechnya during a raid carried out by pro-Moscow security forces and the republic’s Interior Ministry troops, the Itar-Tass news agency cited the republic’s first deputy prime minister Ramzan Kadyrov,” reported MosNews. “The FSB, Russia’s domestic security service, suspected that Chitigov had been maintaining ties with foreign intelligence services and was himself a CIA agent, former FSB spokesman Aleksandr Zdanovich said in April 2001…. According to some reports, Chitigov had a green card—a permanent residence permit in the U.S.”

Of course, it would be foolish to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, and believe everything the Russian FSB (Federal Security Bureau) tells us. However, this is not the only rumored (and demonstrated) incident of CIA, ISI, MI6, etc., involvement in terrorist activity, as noted and documented above and elsewhere, information relatively easy to come by if one wants to spend an afternoon searching various sources on the web, including “mainstream” news and information sources.

Certainly, the sudden outburst of violence in and surrounding Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, will “raise fears that the militancy once confined to Chechnya has spread across the region,” as the Guardian reports. http://“Kavkaz.org, a Chechen militant website, said it had been emailed by Chechen separatists called the Caucasus Front who claimed responsibility for the operation alongside a local jamaat—militant Islamic council—called Yarmuk” (note: as of this writing, the mentioned web site returns an “under construction” page).

As appears obvious, the Brzezinski Terror Doctrine is at work in the Caucasus, where large reserves of oil and gas (including the Caspian basin) wait to be exploited in a replay of the “Great Game,” the 19th-century imperial rivalry between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia for control of the Eurasian landmass and its oil and mineral wealth. It should be noted that the neocons have taken sides, and have for some time—in “August [2004], the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration,” the Guardian reported.

In addition to destabilizing the region, the recent violence once again sends the message, broadcast with sensational imagery and dramatic reports by way of the corporate media, that fanatical Muslims continue to pose a threat, from London to Bali and the Caucasus and beyond, violence we are told by our rulers will eventually reach our shores, thus reminding us that if we remain “too democratic at home,” as Brzezinski observed, we risk the possibility of losing the “war against terrorism” and our freedom—never mind that Bush and crew are busy at work decimating the latter.

Link


Poster Comment:

Also see: The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, The Caucasus, & The Grand Chessboard (1 image)

Subscribe to *ARG List*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread