Al-Qaeda is a contract army for the United States – Michael Hudson, author of Killing the Host and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri (Kansas).
We all know the official story of Al-Qaeda and all the so-called leaders of the terror group who were considered boogeymen and threats to all humanity for a long time, scaring millions if not hundreds of millions of people around the world.
While most reporting on radical Islamism starts from 9/11 when four aircraft were allegedly hijacked and hit the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, radicalizing Muslims and urging them to adopt an aggressive and terroristic approach goes at least a century back.
But for the purpose of this video, the starting point will be Afghanistan in the 1970s when the Soviet Union had a great influence over the country through a secular and socialist government, from which the USSR projected its power to Central Asia, something the United States wasn’t a big fan of.
Therefore, on July 1979, President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, who happened to be radical jihadists to induce a Soviet military intervention.
The idea was proposed by Carter’s national security advisor Brzezinski who planned the dragging of Russians into Afghanistan, and push them to wage a war that was unsustainable for the Soviet Union, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
When Brzezinski was asked if he had any regrets about arming radical jihadists in Afghanistan and eventually creating Al-Qaeda, Brzezinski said: the secret operation was an excellent idea.
in fact, the day the Soviets crossed the border of Afghanistan, Brzezinski wrote to President Carter: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”
The problem with this policy though is that, when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, thousands of radical jihadists armed and equipped by the CIA inspired many people around the world, just like ISIS recently did, and subsequently, terrorist attacks around the world have been normalized.
While some experts argue that this was collateral damage compared to the great American goal of defeating the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War, others say this policy was a deliberate act by the CIA to create a new boogieman, a new enemy to the American empire after the collapse of the Soviet Union to continue its expansion around the world under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
And to be frank, I find the latter argument more believable, especially when we observe the events that followed the fall of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks when the US declared Islamic terrorism its enemy and eventually it went to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Now, before jumping to the other parts of this video, I will share with you what former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in this regard.
While Hillary Clinton’s confessions are quite clear and do not need further elaboration, some analysts go further by saying that Al-Qaeda’s role did not end with the fall of the Soviet Union and the US used the terror group in other parts of the world as a contract mercenary army.
Some may say this is a conspiracy theory but when people with intellectual authority such as Professor Michael Hudson believe it, I think it is better not to rule out the possibility.
So, Al-Qaeda is a contract army of the United States? I never thought I would be saying this in public but the indicators are there for anyone who wants to see.
In 2003, when the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, George W. Bush sent his foreign minister Colin Powell to Damascus to warn Assad and ask him to comply with the American demands or he will meet the same destiny as Saddam Hussein.
With the refusal of Assad to comply with the American dictates, Damascus understood that the U.S. won’t let this pass by without destabilization attempts. However, I believe Syria did not expect non-conventional warfare similar to the Afghanistan model. The expectations were more of a conventional war either by the U.S. or Israel, or both.
In 2011, however, the CIA managed to infiltrate the country and waged a regime change war. The covert operation was called “Timber Sycamore” and it was President Obama who secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming the so-called Free Syrian Army.
According to the New York Times, this was the costliest covert operation in the history of the CIA.
In my opinion, delivering arms to the so-called rebels and the huge media and ideological propaganda against Syria had a broader intention: to divert the weapons to the more radical organizations such as the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front and later ISIS.
This was intentional and the proof of that is the American inaction in the face of thousands of multinational jihadists marching to Syria through a NATO country, watching the advance of ISIS from Der Ezzor to Palmyra and later to Damascus while the fighter jets of the so-called American-led campaign against ISIS were flying over northern Syria without striking the convoys of ISIS.
There were multiple reports and warnings that American weapons are being sold or delivered to ISIS and Al-Nusra, but Washington turned a blind eye to them.
And let’s remember what John Kerry told Syrian opposition figures during a meeting in Washington: “we were watching the advance of ISIS”. Thankfully, the recording of the meeting was leaked to the general public.
So, the United States was watching the advance of ISIS to Damascus and thought it is a good idea to put Assad under the imminent threat of losing the capital to ISIS.
This American policy was part of the CIA’s “Timber Sycamore”. If you aren’t aware of this expensive CIA covert operation, here’s Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector explaining “Timber Sycamore” and the broader intentions of the covert operation. Take a look.
Similarly, Professor Jeffrey Sachs who has high-level contacts within successive U.S. administrations blamed the U.S. for the destruction of Syria and the continuation of the bloodbath in the war-torn country via “Timber Sycamore” and its aftermath.
The interesting part of the U.S. support to radicals abroad against its opponents doesn’t seem like limited to the Islamists, it also extends to neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine.
I know this topic is very controversial but facts do not care about our feelings.
Since the illegal coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, Washington increased its support to the neo-Nazis there to create a military challenge for Russia whose economy is recovering, which means a potential military challenge to the American hegemony over Eurasia.
That’s why the U.S. got to stop Russia and its economic integration with Europe and especially with Germany, and the perfect geopolitical place to do this was in Ukraine through the neo-Nazi groups.
This is another segment of Professor Michael Hudson addressing this particular issue.
So, in your opinion, can the Islamist terrorists and neo-Nazis be considered ground forces for the U.S. empire and if that is the case, do they know that they are geopolitical tools for Washington?
Kevork Almassian is an award-winning political commentator from Syria. He is the founder of Syriana Analysis and is known for his contribution to the literature on the Syrian war.