[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Miscellaneous See other Miscellaneous Articles Title: Coping: With Losing a Friend (George Ure on the loss of his friend, Al Auger, professional soldier and one of the original SPs) Coping: With Losing a Friend
When Elaine and I moved from the luxury (and urban conveniences) or Boca Raton to a little 13-acres hunk of land here in East Texas, we got seriously lucky. Al and Geri Auger lived across the road from us raising rabbits and more recently goats. Fine people - none better.
Al was a professional soldier and one of the originals in Special Forces. As I understand it, he had the only SF unit back in the days of the Vietnam war that was called "the Auger unit". Since then, SF units have been named after states. He shared a number of insights into that conflict including the adventure of walking out of a country that the US 'wasn't in'. Then there was recondo school and time is Saudi Arabia before going to work for a large telecommunications company and spending even more time in the KSA.
I interviewed him once - on the record - for a Peoplenomics.com piece (Issue #150, September 5, 2004 in the library if you're a subscriber) since he's the only person I know who had personal dealings with Osama Bin Laden. An extract from that piece:
"G: So how did you come to know OBL?
A: We’ll, let me give you a little bit of background. When I was in the Army (Special Forces – GU) I did a tour at the Monterey Language School where I learned to read, write, and speak Arabic. After that, I was sent to Saudi Arabia, where I did two tours in country as an advisor to the Saudi Army.
As soon as I got out of the Army, I was on a plane the next day going to work for an American telecommunications company which had a number of construction contracts in the Kingdom. I went over to Saudi Arabia and completed two contracts – in all a total of about 12-years in the Kingdom.
G: How was it that you met Osama?
A: You need to understand that the bin Laden family was very much involved in the construction business. They had contracts with the government – so when a hospital, a hotel – or even a Royal Palace was built, the bin Laden family was usually involved in the construction – they were highly regarded by the Royal family
G: Was the family what you’d call a U.S. asset?
A: No, not really – they were a Saudi operation. They didn’t do anything in the way of work for the American government that I know of.
By the way, one thing most people don’t know is that the family originally came from Yemen. They immigrated to Saudi Arabia to pursue the opportunities in the Kingdom which had a tremendous amount of construction going on at the time.
G: When was this?
A: I was there from about 1978 onward till my contracts were up.
G: So you met Osama when he was with the family business. What was his position there?
A: He was appointed director of the telecommunications group, a position for which he had no experience, or incentive to learn.
G: So who made the decisions and what was Osama doing?
A: There was a western manager, who made all the decision, and Osama would sign the purchase orders, and personnel. The manager made the decisions, and Osama signed the paperwork, although he didn’t really know the details of what was going on.
G: What was his attitude toward American’s?
A: It was one of – any non-Moslem – his attitude was that they shouldn’t be in the Kingdom, and that’s where his troubles began. He decided to openly advocate and openly criticize the Royal family for letting foreigners in. And he openly advocated the overthrow of the Royal family – and that’s what got him in trouble.
G: Wasn’t the US some how trying to get him out of the Kingdom and shuffled off to Afghanistan? That’s the impression one gets from reading some accounts..
A: It’s not so at all. He began to run afoul of the Saudi Royal family –and the U.S. didn’t have any interest in him – and at that point he was no a threat to the U.S. He was, however a threat to himself and his family because of his open hostility for allowing non-Moslems into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
G: Was this anti-American thing something that grew – I mean could you ever trace it back to a source or something that was going on in particular that rubbed him the wrong way?
A: It wasn’t just Americans. In his mind, the Americans were the biggest threat because the American military had a stronger presence in the Kingdom at that time. He decided that in order to overthrow the Royal Family he had to drive a wedge between the U.S. A. and the Saudi royals. Again, non-Moslem influence was the key – and his hostility was toward the Royal Family for allowing significant number of non-Moslems on Saudi soil.
But he realized, eventually, that the only way to separate the Americans from the Royal Family would be by overthrowing the Royal family. And he started to openly advocate overthrow– in other words a revolution or coup.
That’s when the Royal Family stepped in and gave the bin Laden family the choice: either permanent exile for Osama, or if he stayed in the Kingdom, they were going to behead him.
Osama bin Laden’s problem is that he wants to overthrow the Royal Family – and install himself as the ruler of the country – that’s his goal.
G: Osama has this image that comes through in some western and Arab press that he thinks of himself as some kind of Wahabbi holy man. Do you think that’s sincere, or is that just his game to gather support for his own power trip?
A: That’s a good question. Because I feel that he’s primarily motivated by the total isolation of the royal kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And he wants to take it over so he can lead it down the righteous path of Islam. The Royal family has made too many friends with America – and he knows that relationship is so strong, is to separate the two. And I think, he has achieved step one – he has separated the U.S. from the Royal Family.
G: So that was the agenda behind 9/11?
A: Yeah,. I really believe that because I don’t think it was any accident that most of the people involved in 9/11 were Saudi. I think the only reason they had some non-Saudi members in was to placate other members of al Qaida. Remember his # 2 in the command structure was an Egyptian, and his number three was a Jordanian. So they all wanted some input. But if Osama had his way, I think it would have been strictly a Saudi affair.
G: How dangerous is the Wahabbi sect today – And the reason I ask is we have spent in the US billions of dollars since 9/11 with a so-called war on terror – and what you’re saying is its three or four bright, well connected middle east guys with a case of sour grapes because they don’t get to control the oil money.
A: That another good one. Let me ask you a question. Which religious sect has been creating most of the problems?
G: Wahabbi?
A: No! Shi’ites. Al Sadr’s group has been creating problems since 1978. You haven’t heard of one Wahabbi being involved in Iraq – Iraq is 40% Shi’ite but the Shi’ites cause 90% of the problems in the country.
The problem is in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia – it’s all Shi’ite – and I have personally witnessed those. The main problems in the region are Shi’ite. They were behind the problems in Bahrain a few years back, behind the uprising at Mecca during the Haj before that and with many other examples besides those.
I haven’t heard any discussion of Wahabbi fomenting an attack – so why all the emphasis on Wahabbi doesn’t make sense.
G: I think it’s the perception of the western media (like me) that OBL was a Wahabbi – not a militant Shi’ite.
A: I’m not saying what Osama is, all the people causing the problem are Shi’ite. Does it matter?
G : Yes – because if the problems of Shiite – that’s a huge numerical difference between Shi’ites and a little 5% kind of group like Wahabbi.
A: Again, the Wahabbi are too insignificant – it’s the militant Shi’ites are the problem. I don’t believe that they’re being pushed by the Wahabbi – they kind of keep to themselves.
Historically you know, the Shiites have been the most belligerent and nothing has changed. The American media don’t know anything because they don’t go to the Middle East.
I heard a so-called consultant on a television station last week (2004-G) – and come to find out that he spent two weeks in the Middle East – and that was after the Lebanon bombing – and that’s an expert? Please…
G: Another thing we hear about Osama is that he has health problems. Specifically there has been a lot of talk on the internet that Osama has kidney problems and needed dialysis. From what you know, what was his health and if someone made claims that he needed regular dialysis, would you believe them?
A: No. He seemed healthy enough, but he seemed healthy enough – he never talked about his health and I talked to him on quite a few occasions. I never heard anything about his health until it appeared in the media. I have no way of knowing whether it’s true.
Once he was exiled, I had nothing to do with him, but I was in Saudi until 1995.
I’ve got my own take on this. The news media – they pick on from things from others, or they get supposed consultants that have 2 weeks and are suddenly experts. I lived there 12 years, I read, right and speak the language, I’ve read the Koran in Arabic – and I don’t consider myself to be an expert.
I’ve managed to travel to every Middle Eastern country – not once but on numerous occasions and I have friends in every country and I still communicate with many of them, I’m not in business, but we still talk and they still seek advice.
G: Given your background, what’s your take on the pros and cons about going after Iran. On the one hand, they are a Shi’ite run country – and from what you say that’s dangerous, especially given nuclear weapons, but on the other they are a sovereign state. What should we do?
A: I consider Iran to be the most dangerous of all of them,. Now, if Iran really tries to make a strong move in any direction, the whole Arab peninsula, the whole thing -Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi - they would all look to us to help them out. They’re all afraid of Iran.
G: What specifically are they afraid of…militant Shi’ites?
A: Well, they see Iranians are being ruled by the Ayatollahs and they don’t want any part of it. They want to keep what they have, even though most of those governments there don’t meet our full approval for civil rights, equal rights and all the other things we value here, but they’re happy with them.
G Let me step back a half step then and ask, given that there’s been no evidence yet of WMD’s in Iraq, did the Bush administration do the right thing there, or should we have left Saddam the dictator in place to act as a buffer - something that could be sacrificed to Iran?
A: First, I think the WMD’s will be found – in Syria. Syria is a little stink pot all of its own. If they can bury MIG’s , they can bury five tons of Sarin gas.
Iran, is again, the biggest threat – should we go after them? No, I don’t think the timing is right.
But being in Iraq at this time has accomplished two things: First, it’s been a battle ground which has forced al Qaida to focus on something other than another attack on the US or anywhere else in the world. It’s occupying the Shi’ites and keeping them busy. "
And that was from 2004. More recently, Al shared that his sources (which were many) are now concerned that so many young radicalized Muslims are heading for Pakistan. The fear among the real experts (not the two-week marvels) is that radical elements will foment revolution and overthrow of any government in Pakistan friendly to the West and will attempt to seize nuclear weapons and technology.
---
Al was extremely generous in sharing knowledge, too. Occasionally, he'd tell me "Locals gave me a hard time now and then when we first moved here about not being from Texas but I just told 'em "I got here as fast as I could..." and that seemed to satisfy them."
Whether it was comparing the protein composition of goat feed, borrowing a tool that either of us didn't have (between out spares, we could probably build and plumb a whole house), or discussing the fine points of tractoring and dirt work, Auger was an absolute fountain of knowledge. Always had a good sense of plants, especially trees, having grown up the son of a nurseryman.
---
Most Veteran's Days we'd get a glass of wine or tequila, or whatever and toast "Those present and those not."
---
His wife Geri preceded him. She'd passed away in late July, in a farm accident and CPR from Elaine and me wasn't enough to bring her back.
There may be something to that saying that the hardest period for a surviving spouse to get through is the 5-7 month window after a mate passes. It was so in this case and both are sorely missed.
---
Our deepest condolences to the Auger family, and to his colleagues of SFA 31 who helped him through these last six months, especially LTC. JJ. We'll be sending a remembrance to the Wounded Warrior Project, as had been his wish before.
---
I mentioned yesterday, that this was going to be a hard week. It's maybe a little early but "To those present and those not." Particularly 'Sneaky Pete" Auger. Best of the best. Salute.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
There are two themes running through this article. First, we have an enthusiasm for covert warfare. Second, we have what I would describe as a very coherent view of recent Saudi royal history and its dealings with the bin Laden family. On the first, let's remember that we actually have made enemies in the Muslim world. Our military's elite (and their supporters) have legitimate concerns about this. On the second theme, those who argue that bin Laden isn't real are a little too eager to rewrite all history. Revisionism is an opportunity to reinterpret events, not just rewrite them. In 9/11 conspiracy circles (both Zionist and their critics) it is always assumed that either Arabs or Zionist agents committed the atrocities of 9/11. It is said that those seeking vengence should dig a grave for themselves and their enemies. Likewise, two enemies require the other, forming a kind of symmetry. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the Mossad both use the actions of Islamic "extremists" to justify their actions. Likewise, Islamic nationalists use Zionism's excesses as an excuse for their actions. What we're missing here is something we've heard from America's own intelligence experts: our one-sided relationship with Israel has reaped the anger of the Muslim world. In that sense, it may be that Zionists and Islamic militants were both conspiring to drive wedges between America and the Islamic world, especially the Saudis. A third possibility is that both sides worked together to pull off 9/11. They may have done this without the either party cooperating overtly with the other. What America's war-willing forget is that they may have been lured into conflict that was unnecessary and costly in ways we have not yet envisioned. The best war is the one completely avoided. War for Israel should become a thing of the past, if America is to survive. That is the clearest form of 9/11 truth I know. The author and his interviewee were unwilling to consider it. I look forward to the day when our special forces members are directed by people who are only willing to fight for true American interests. We're nowhere nearer that today than we were on September 10, 2001.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||