Are Mullah
Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein CIA's
protégés?
By Der Voron, author of Starcraft
There were rumors that
Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein are
CIA's protégés (or agents). Are these rumors true or
false? Let us analyze the facts:
Mullah Omar:
1) It is known that he was arranged to be the head of
Taleban, back in 1994, by ISI (Pakistani intelligence
service), and that ISI has close ties with CIA and
MI-5/MI-6 (Britain's intelligence services).
2) In 2001, when the war on Taleban began, Mullah Omar
could have ordered Taleban troops and agents to invade
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. There,
oppressed people would be ready to revolt against their
regimes, and to support the Taleban liberators in their
actions. They would also support the Taleban, in their
fight against the North Alliance, and US militaries.
Thus, the Taleban would have more people and resources to
fight against its enemies.
Why didn't he take this evident step?
Imagine yourself in Mullah Omar's position. The United
States wants to destroy your regime, and your regime
fights against them. You know that Uzbeks, Turkmens, and
Tajiks are ready to revolt. What would you do? If you
would de facto be against the US, then you would
immediately do something similar to that described above
(OK, in Tajikistan there is, and was, one of the best
Russian military divisions, but we still have Uzbekistan
and Turkmenistan). And if you would only de jure be
against the US, and would de facto be their (and ISI)
operative?
Osama bin Laden:
1) He fought against the Soviet troops back in 1980s,
during the Soviet-Afghan war (in which the US supported
Afghanistan);
2) US attempted to kill him in 1998, firing a bunch of
rockets at the building where he was supposedly present.
They killed a lot of people, except for bin Laden
himself;
3) They have tried to find him in Afghanistan, over the
past 15 months. But it seems they can never find him.
Indeed, why would they want to imprison, or even kill,
such a good agent?
4) He was and is an advisor to Mullah Omar. Imagine that
you are Omar's advisor. The US wants to destroy the
Taleban regime, and you fight against them. You know that
Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Tajiks are ready to revolt. Mullah
Omar and, by some strange coincidence, all his advisors
evidently don't see this possibility (please see above).
What would you do?
It seems Osama makes periodical claims against the US
(including, for example, his pre-war recommendations to
Saddam' troops about how to fight against the US) just to
"keep image", i.e. to show the world that he
with Al-Qaeda actively "struggles" against the
"world policeman".
Saddam Hussein (this is the most doubtful case, below it
will be explained why). Questions:
1) In 1980, he attacked Iran -- whilst Iran contained
about 3 times the population of Iraq -- right after a
fundamentalist ayatollah regime came to power there. This
fundamentalist regime represented danger for the United
States. The United States almost openly supported Iraq in
this war. Was it just a coincidence that Iraq attacked
Iran, right after an anti-US regime came to power in it?
Was it a coincidence that Iraq should attack Iran: a
nation with 3 times its population, and an army to match?
Was it a case of the US saying: "any enemy of my
enemy is a friend of mine"? Was this the underlying
reason for the US support of Iraq in this war?
2) In 1990, he decided to take Kuwait, basing his attack
on a mere written consent -- not even an original
document, but a telex - from none other than George W.
Bush Sr. If you were the ruler of Iraq, would you proceed
to annex Kuwait, just on the strength of this piece of
paper?
3) After he captured Kuwait in 1990, why didn't he then
offer the Soviet Union, which still existed at that time,
the opportunity to engage its troops in Iraq, in order to
prevent the coalition's military operation? An offer, in
which the Soviet Union would also receive 50% of Kuwait's
oil at a cheap rate (thus becoming able to save its
economy, which was collapsing at that time; oil
extraction in Kuwait is much less expensive than in the
Soviet Union/CIS because of climate differences)?
Perhaps such an idea came to his head, and he offered a
similar plan to the Soviet Union (i.e., let us assume he
is not a CIA operative). But, maybe Soviet leaders were
just too heavily bribed by the West to risk placing any
obstacles in the way of the coalition's plans. We cannot
know that for sure; that is why I wrote above that
Saddam's case as being a CIA agent is the most doubtful.
But, in this case, a question remains: why didn't the
Soviet leaders realize that Kuwaiti oil was worth far
more than all the monitory bribes they could ever hope to
receive?
4) In 2003, he could have used his aviation against US
troops (North Korea, on the other hand, is reportedly
planning to use its aviation. Numbering about 650
warplanes, North Korea could use its substantial air
force against South Korea, and against US troops; they
could use this force in the normal sense, or even like
kamikaze pilots). Why didn't he?
5) And, finally, Baghdad was captured by the coalition
troops, almost without any form of organised resistance.
Why?
Now, if we assume that Saddam is the CIA protégé, then
he has accomplished his task (and, for example, didn't
take the step similar to the one described above). The
United States have almost taken control over Iraq, and is
ready for next phase of military operations. At the same
time, almost all people think that the United States has
vanquished Iraq, in a tough, though short, struggle. If
Saddam is genuinely not a CIA agent then here is what
scenario may await us in the future...
Perhaps the surrender of Baghdad was just a manoeuver by
Saddam's troops. Perhaps Saddam ordered them to hide
themselves and to wait for the hour X: when the coalition
troops feel they are almost entirely safe in Baghdad and
Iraq, and when they loose their caution against possible
attacks. And, maybe he arranged for some Iraqis to loot,
"dethrone" Saddam's statues etc, to show the
coalition the Iraqi people's complete disobedience
towards Saddam's regime (i.e. the looting is being done
by certain Iraqis, who appear to "represent"
the Iraqi people. Just like the Bolsheviks, who arranged
for their party's members to play the role of people
welcoming Bolsheviks, during the October revolution of
1917 in the Russian Empire)? And, finally, doesn't it
seem strange that the victory in the war on Iraq was,
"in general", reached in about 3 weeks, while
Serbia, a country much weaker in military aspect, was
only vanquished after a much longer struggle? Serbian
President doesn't seem to be a protégé or agent of the
CIA...
Also, building an oil refinery doesn't mean to begin
getting oil. If a guerrilla unit fires it just after it
is built (or, after an already existing oil refinery
begins producing oil) it means that the money used to
build it was spent in vain, with no oil received.
There are the Russian Federation and China factors. They
have vetoed in the OUN's Council of Security the military
operation against North Korea. Russia almost openly
supported Iraq in the war, and, for example, supplied
specialists to help install the systems that
"deceived" Tomahawks into missing their
targets. Russia has sent its Pacific Ocean Fleet's ships
to the Indian Ocean, and is planning to send its Black
Sea fleet. If Saddam Hussein has fallen, then what does
Russia count on in Iraq? Or, do they just organize a next
demonstration of non-existent muscles, like they have
sometimes? In military aspect, Russia does seem a weak
enemy. For example, Russian military budget is, in dollar
equivalent, about $10bn, while American is about $300bn.
At the first sight, it seems they are incomparable. But
if we take in account that Russian prices are, on
average, about 4 times lower then we will have to
multiply $10bn by 4 to get the real purchasing power of
dollar in Russia. With regards to China, its military
budget is reportedly 15bn dollars. But some CIA sources
say that the Chinese real military budget may be up to 4
times bigger. Prices in China are also low, thus closer
to those in Russia...
*Note: this article may be re-published or re-used at no
charge, as long as proper credit is given.
Index
|
